netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net: Implmement RFC 6936 (zero RX csums for UDP/IPv6)

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]

Date:	Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:17:03 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
CC:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] net: Implmement RFC 6936 (zero RX csums
 for UDP/IPv6)

Tom Herbert wrote:

>>>       while (sk) {
>>> +             if (!uh->check && !udp_sk(sk)->check6_zero_okay) {
>>> +                     /*
>>> +                      * If checksum in packet is zero and not all the
>>> +                      * sockets accept a zero checksum then declare
>>> +                      * a checksum error.
>>> +                      */
>>> +                     flush_stack(stack, count, skb, ~0);
>>> +                     count = 0;
>>> +                     udp6_csum_zero_error(skb);
>>> +                     UDP6_INC_STATS_BH(net, UDP_MIB_CSUMERRORS, proto == IPPROTO_UDPLITE);
>>> +                     UDP6_INC_STATS_BH(net, UDP_MIB_INERRORS, proto == IPPROTO_UDPLITE);
>>> +                     break;
>>> +             }
>>>               stack[count++] = sk;
>>>               sk = udp_v6_mcast_next(net, sk_nulls_next(sk), uh->dest, daddr,
>>>                                      uh->source, saddr, dif);
>>
>> This seems wrong; packets with zero-checksum will not be delivered to
>> some sockets if some of sockets accept zero-checksums and others do not.
>>
> Okay, I suppose delivering to some and not others is reasonable,
> although there's no accounting for the non-deliverables-- I suppose
> there's no completely clean way to do this...

Well, I believe that supporting UDP packets with zero-checksum
should be implemented in a consistent way with UDP-lite.

>> BTW, I have been thinking that we should introduce 4 options
>> (or bits) for IPv4/IPv6 checksumming for sender/receiver.
>>
> What are these 4 options?

I meant combination of {ipv4,ipv6} and {sender,receiver}.

--yoshfuji

--
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