netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 12/14] gtp: Configuration for zero UDP 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: <CALx6S35NP_BJ8oHwjkOZkNYJa=g7hWeUiNMZ5WNj-2FQaksCeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:09:29 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>,
        Rohit Seth <rohit@...ntonium.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/14] gtp: Configuration for zero UDP checksum

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:24 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>
> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:39:02 -0700
>
>> Add configuration to control use of zero checksums on transmit for both
>> IPv4 and IPv6, and control over accepting zero IPv6 checksums on
>> receive.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>
>
> I thought we were trying to move away from this special case of allowing
> zero UDP checksums with tunnels, especially for ipv6.

I don't have a strong preference either way. I like consistency with
VXLAN and foo/UDP, but I guess it's not required. Interestingly, since
GTP only carries IP, IPv6 zero checksums are actually safer here than
VXLAN or GRE/UDP.

Tom