netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: udp packets following an UFO enqueued packet need also be handled by UFO

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1380714835.19002.92.camel@edumazet-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 02 Oct 2013 04:53:55 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: udp packets following an UFO enqueued packet need
 also be handled by UFO


> This patch should fix this on ipv4 as well:
> 
> Subject: ip_output: do skb ufo init for peeked non ufo skb as well
> 

Is it an official patch ? s/Subject:/[PATCH]/ 

> Now, if user application does:

Any idea when the bug was added (commit id + title) ?

> sendto len<mtu flag MSG_MORE
> sendto len>mtu flag 0
> The skb is not treated as fragmented one because it is not initialized
> that way. So move the initialization to fix this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/ip_output.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_output.c b/net/ipv4/ip_output.c
> index a04d872..bd21c5d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/ip_output.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_output.c
> @@ -772,15 +772,19 @@ static inline int ip_ufo_append_data(struct sock *sk,
>  		/* initialize protocol header pointer */
>  		skb->transport_header = skb->network_header + fragheaderlen;
>  
> -		skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_PARTIAL;
>  		skb->csum = 0;

Any idea why we have skb->csum = 0 here ?

Thanks !


--
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