netdev - Re: [net-next 05/19] ixgbe: Add support for UDP-encapsulated tx checksum offload

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:21:26 +0000
From:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
	"jogreene@...hat.com" <jogreene@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 05/19] ixgbe: Add support for UDP-encapsulated tx
 checksum offload

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> 
> Mark, another question in this area of code. Looking at ixgbe_tx_csum,
> I'm wondering what happens with those default cases for the switch
> statements. If those are hit for whatever reason does that mean the
> checksum is never resolved? It seems like if the device couldn't
> handle these cases then skb_checksum_help should be called to set the
> checksum. In particular I am wondering what happens in the case that a
> TCP or UDP packet is sent in IPv6 with an extension header present (so
> default is taken in switch (l4_hdr)). Would the checksum be properly
> set in this case?

I will look further into this, but in a first look it appears that you are right and that it has been this way for some time.

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)