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]
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:31:11 +0100
From:   Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/5] net: split skb_checksum_help

On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 07:11 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is the preferred mechanism on the transmit path this
> defers defers the checksum computation as long as possible.
> Unfortunately, if SCTP is encapsulated in UDP we will probably need to
> run the SCTP CRC on the host which will be done with your changes to
> skb_checksum_help.

right. Tunnel devices have NETIF_F_SCTP_CRC bit cleared and
NETIF_F_HW_CSUM bit set: so, in this case csum_not_inet can help
recovering non-GSO SCTP packets having ip_summed equal to
CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.

> > I'm not sure if setting CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY fits my case, because this would
> > implicitly skip RX validation when using devices like veth or loopback.
> >
> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY can be used in the transmit path (really the
> forwarding path), however this I think this must imply that the
> checksum in the packet must be correct. Please see my post about
> drivers that are mistakingly using CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with LRO since
> the checksum in the packet sent into the stack is not correct.

Ok, now I'm more convinced to use CHECKSUM_NONE :-)

thank you for the attention!
regards
--
davide
 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists