netdev - Re: [PATCH] ehea: Fix a checksum issue on the receive path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4CAF2732.90703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:14:10 -0300
From:	Breno Leitao <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ehea: Fix a checksum issue on the receive path

Hi Eric

On 10/08/2010 01:45 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Just to be clear : packets with wrong checksums are not given to upper
> stack, so a tcpdump can not display them ? I am not sure many drivers do
> that.
Well, what my code does is: 1) if the current packet is a UDP/TCP, then 
the checksum is not necessary, since we would check the checksum on 
ehea_proc_rwqes(), specific at this part of the code:

                if (!ehea_check_cqe(cqe, &rq)) {
			// Send the packet to the up layers

And ehea_check_cqe() checks for wrong checksumed packets on:
	
         if ((cqe->status & EHEA_CQE_STAT_ERR_MASK) == 0)
                 return 0;


Botton line, TCP/UDP packets with wrong checksums are dropped by 
ehea_proc_rwqes(), others go to the up layer.

So, back to your question, you are saying that we shouldn't do that, 
meaning that we should send to the upper layers all packets ? even those 
that have the wrong checksum ?

Thanks
Breno
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html