netdev - Questions on sk_no_check implemenation

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+mtBx_SK5LG8z_kTr5sHNhGQMBDgc+kpG49uyjgDM_eoK1hKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 May 2014 19:34:40 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Questions on sk_no_check implemenation

Hi, I'm looking at sk_no_check implementation and am hoping to get
clarification on a couple of use cases.

1) In l2tp_core.c, if sk_no_check is set it looks like this will
completely bypass UDP checksum verification on RX even for packets
with nonzero checksums.

d2cf33616 (Benjamin LaHaise 2012-04-27 08:24:18 +0000 505) if
(sk->sk_no_check || skb_csum_unnecessary(skb))

I don't believe this is standards compliant and seems pretty risky
otherwise. What is the requirement here? Is this still needed?

2) The constant UDP_CSUM_NORCV was introduced for sunrpc and in fact
this looks like the only code that sets it. AFAICT the only effect
this would have would be to disable receive checksum verification in
L2TP as described above. What was the intent of UDP_CSUM_NORCV and why
was using this specific to sunrpc?

Thanks for  your help,
Tom
--
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