netdev - Re: veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."

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: <20160325.124427.273071525698476869.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:44:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	greearb@...delatech.com
Cc:	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, vijayp@...ayp.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ej@...njones.ca, cwang@...pensource.com
Subject: Re: veth regression with "don’t modify
 ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."

From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:10:58 -0700

> I am suspicious that this will break at least some drivers.  I
> grepped around for ip_summed, and found this, for instance:
> 
> davicom/dm9000.c
> 
>         /* The DM9000 is not smart enough to leave fragmented packets

An really old (circa 1997), not-oft-used, driver such as this is not
the place to be looking for correct usage of skb->ip_summed semantics.

I would never use whatever a driver like this does influence whether I
apply a bug fix or not.