netdev - Re: [PATCH 9/9 v2] net: Add sysctl to trust 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: <20140428.001552.1083601553706782584.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	therbert@...gle.com
Cc:	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9 v2] net: Add sysctl to trust checksum_complete

From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:07:24 -0700

>> If we do anything, we should do it consistently and not just for one
>> specific checksum delivery type.
>>
>> So if we add a sysctl, it should revalidate the checksum in software
>> for all checksum offload variants, and such a sysctl should be off by
>> default.
> 
> Okay, but I would want to add a new checksum type to distinguish
> checksum_complete that was done in software as opposed to one received
> from a device.

I don't think it's wise to keep CHECKSUM_COMPLETE once you've software
verified it.

If anything, you should at that point treat it as we would have treated
it were it marked CHECKSUM_NONE.

Therefore I see no reason for a new checksum type.

Please repost your series if you want me to consider it with this patch
removed, rather than just saying "apply the series without patch X".

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