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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 16:15:11 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...hat.com> To: therbert@...gle.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Questions on sk_no_check implemenation From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 19:34:40 -0700 > 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? I think this is simply a thinko and the code should be checking non-zero csums. > 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? I have no idea about this case. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists