netdev - Re: [net PATCH 0/2] Don't use lco_csum to compute IPv4 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: <20161201.154131.440872706184192948.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Cc:     alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 0/2] Don't use lco_csum to compute IPv4 checksum

From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:15:22 -0800

> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 09:47 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:42:18 -0500
>> 
>> > When I implemented the GSO partial support in the Intel drivers I was
>> using
>> > lco_csum to compute the checksum that we needed to plug into the IPv4
>> > checksum field in order to cancel out the data that was not a part of
>> the
>> > IPv4 header.  However this didn't take into account that the transport
>> > offset might be pointing to the inner transport header.
>> > 
>> > Instead of using lco_csum I have just coded around it so that we can
>> use
>> > the outer IP header plus the IP header length to determine where we
>> need to
>> > start our checksum and then just call csum_partial ourselves.
>> > 
>> > This should fix the SIT issue reported on igb interfaces as well as
>> simliar
>> > issues that would pop up on other Intel NICs.
>> 
>> Jeff, are you going to send me a pull request with this stuff or would
>> you be OK with my applying these directly to 'net'?
> 
> Go ahead and apply those to your net tree, I do not want to hold this up.

Ok, done, thanks Jeff.