netdev - Re: Does CHECKSUM_COMPLETE work at all?

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: <53089B34.5060504@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Feb 2014 13:42:28 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
CC:	Dimitrios Michailidis <dm@...lsio.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: Does CHECKSUM_COMPLETE work at all?

On 02/22/2014 04:08 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
...
> Well..., I started trying to fix the UDP encapsulation code which we
> agreed was broken for checksums. This also entails fixing the new UDP
> GRO code to deal with checksums correctly when going through protocol
> layers. But, just looking at CHECKSUM_COMPLETE it seems like it's
> fundamentally broken even without encapsulation. Between GRO and HW
> checksums, it seems like we have a pretty big mess! :-)

Seems so, e.g. d97c00a32198 ("vxlan: fix receive checksum handling")
had similar issues in that regard; maybe because there seems to be
different consensus among drivers on setting CHECKSUM_COMPLETE?
--
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