netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix false positives in can_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: <1443510488.4674.118.camel@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:08:08 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix false positives in can_checksum_protocol()

On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 12:37 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> I think it's easier to just call skb_checksum_help from the driver
> when the packet is actually sent to the device (should be no cost for
> late binding).

That's true for checksum. Not for things like TSO though, and I wonder
if it's worth keeping it simple and doing it *all* in
.ndo_features_check()? 

> > Note that 'seeded with an IPv[46] pseudo header' isn't quite
> > sufficient. Some hardware like 8139cp is explicitly told to do a UDP or
> > a TCP checksum with a bit in the descriptor, so any UDP-like or TCP
> > -like checksum works out fine.
> > 
> UDP or TCP can be determined from csum_offset, e.g. 16=>TCP 6=>UDP

Kind of. There'll be false positives there too, though. That was
actually the basis of my first attempt to address this, at
http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2013/01/14/36

-- 
dwmw2


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5691 bytes)