netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mscc: allow extracting the FCS into the skb

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:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     antoine.tenart@...tlin.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, quentin.schulz@...tlin.com,
        allan.nielsen@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mscc: allow extracting the FCS into the
 skb

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:25:01 -0700

> 
> 
> On October 10, 2018 7:46:31 AM PDT, Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com> wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 02:43:23PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> > The question could be "do we need len += ETH_FCS_LEN" to account
>>for the
>>> > FCS when NETIF_F_RXFCS is used", but I looked at other drivers and
>>it
>>> > seemed to me the FCS is not accounted in the stats. Should it be?
>>> 
>>> There does not appear to be a good answer to that. I submitted a
>>patch
>>> to a driver i'm using to not count it, so that the stats counters we
>>> consistent with another driver. The patch was rejected.
>>> 
>>> I think the best you can do is flip a coin, and then document it
>>using
>>> a comment about if it is/is not included.
>>
>>I'll leave it as-is then :)
>>
>>@Dave, Florian: it seems to me no modification was requested after
>>discussing those changes. Where do we stand regarding the patch?
> 
> Silence means agreement, thanks for your explanation, no more questions or concerns on my side.

You'll probably need to resubmit the patch anew though.