[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130116.180044.630688719598008373.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:00:44 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dwmw2@...radead.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Avoid making inappropriate requests of
NETIF_F_V[46]_CSUM devices
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:34:18 +0000
> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 15:54 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>
>> My opinion on this is that the injectors of packets are responsible
>> for ensuring checksum types are set on SKBs in an appropriate way.
>>
>> So we ensure this in the local protocol stacks that generate packets,
>> and if foreign alien entities can inject SKBs with these checksum
>> settings (like the tun device can) the burdon of verification falls
>> upon whatever layer allows that to happen.
>>
>> So really, the fix is in the tun device and the virtio layer.
>
> The virtio layer (and the tun device) expose the equivalent of the
> NETIF_F_HW_CSUM capability to the guest. In the case where we have a
> real device on the host which *also* has NETIF_F_HW_CSUM capability, are
> you saying that the tun driver should do the checksum for non-UDP/TCP
> packets in software *anyway*, just because the packet might end up going
> out a device *without* that capability, and the check in
> harmonize_features() isn't sophisticated enough to cope properly?
I'm saying that tun can't inject unchecked crap into our stack.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists