netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] net: Do not include padding in TCP GRO checksum

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: <528909E4.1000100@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:24:36 -0800
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: Do not include padding in TCP GRO checksum

On 11/16/2013 07:17 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 09:02:34AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> That being the case though, why don't we set the flush flag on detecting
>> a bad checksum and hand it off to tcp_gro_receive instead of returning
>> NULL?  It seems like it would be in our interest to flush the flow and
>> then report the bad checksum instead of keeping the flow and handing off
>> the bad checksum to the stack.
> Because if the TCP checksum is wrong then it may belong to a
> different flow.
>
> Cheers,

It seems like it would be much more likely that a checksum error
occuring with a padded frame would corrupt the flow identifying data
then one that isn't padded.

I suppose it doesn't really matter though since checksum errors are
probably not going to be all that common of a case to deal with anyway.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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