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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:29:11 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 3/4] ipv6: no CHECKSUM_PARTIAL on MSG_MORE corked
 sockets

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 18:32, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, at 17:36, Tom Herbert wrote:> > -               if
> > (cork->length + length > maxnonfragsize - headersize) {
> >> > +       if (cork->length + length > maxnonfragsize - headersize) {
> >> >  emsgsize:
> >> > -                       ipv6_local_error(sk, EMSGSIZE, fl6,
> >> > -                                        mtu - headersize +
> >> > -                                        sizeof(struct ipv6hdr));
> >> > -                       return -EMSGSIZE;
> >> > -               }
> >> > +               ipv6_local_error(sk, EMSGSIZE, fl6,
> >> > +                                mtu - headersize +
> >> > +                                sizeof(struct ipv6hdr));
> >> > +               return -EMSGSIZE;
> >> >         }
> >> >
> >> > +       /* CHECKSUM_PARTIAL only with no extension headers and when
> >>
> >> No, please don't do this. CHECKSUM_PARTIAL should work with extension
> >> headers as defined, so this is just disabling otherwise valid and
> >> useful functionality. If (some) drivers have problems with this they
> >> need to be identified and fixed.
> >
> > I don't understand. The old code already didn't allow the use of
> > opt_flen with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
> >
> Then that's a problem with the old code :-). Is there any other reason
> that we can't use CHECKSUM_PARTIAL with extension headers other than
> lack of correct driver support?

The lack of correct driver support is a big bumper, but as I wrote, I
don't see a reason to not lift this restriction in net-next. I proposed
a new feature flag, or by looking at your series, we could probably use
the extension header okay field for that.

I would be conservative in net though.

Bye,
Hannes
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ