netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] GENEVE/VXLAN: Enable outer Tx checksum by default

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: <20160223.130826.608797488173024832.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:08:26 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ecree@...arflare.com
Cc:	rick.jones2@....com, tom@...bertland.com, jesse@...nel.org,
	aduyck@...antis.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] GENEVE/VXLAN: Enable outer Tx checksum by
 default

From: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:38:28 +0000

> On 23/02/16 17:20, Rick Jones wrote:
>> On 02/23/2016 08:47 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> Right, GRO should probably not coalesce packets with non-zero IP
>>> identifiers due to the loss of information. Besides that, RFC6848 says
>>> the IP identifier should only be set for fragmentation anyway so there
>>> shouldn't be any issue and really no need for HW TSO (or LRO) to
>>> support that.
>>
>> You sure that is RFC 6848 "Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)" ?
> PossiblyRFC 6864 "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field".
>> In whichever RFC that may be, is it a SHOULD or a MUST, and just how many "other" stacks might be setting a non-zero IP ID on fragments with DF set?
> "The IPv4 ID field MUST NOT be used for purposes other than fragmentation
>  and reassembly."(§4.1)
> "Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams to any
>  value."(§4.1)
> "All devices that examine IPv4 headers MUST ignore the IPv4 ID field of
>  atomic datagrams."(§4.1)
> Atomic datagrams are defined by "(DF==1)&&(MF==0)&&(frag_offset==0)" (§4).
> 
> So it's OK to coalesce packets with different identifiers, as long as they
> have DFset (and aren't fragmented already).  Also, the RFC takes pains to
> point out that it "does not reserve any IPv4 ID values, including 0, as
> distinguished" (§4.1), so one cannot rely on the ID always being zero.

Just a reminder that a very long time ago we tried setting the IP ID
field to zero for DF packets, and this broke SLHC because that expects
a monotonically increasing IP ID field.