netdev - Re: [Patch net] mlx5: fixup checksum for ethernet padding

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: <CANn89iJx4t6seOhkBFyoGuDquZ_7J_oM+nmn+TK79H=YKfm4fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:48:58 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] mlx5: fixup checksum for ethernet padding

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:42 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:25 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/27/2018 04:07 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:48 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> But the padding might be added on normal packets (say 1000 bytes + 3 bytes of padding) ?
> > >
> > > I never see other padding cases than ETH_ZLEN. Does ethernet standard
> > > require padding for other cases? I only read the section "3.2.8 Pad field" in
> > > the standard.
> > >
> >
> > Padding can be done by senders, eg using AF_PACKET,
> > added at the tail of a regular IP/IP6 frame of 1000 or 6000 bytes.
>
>
> I tried the trafgen script you provided, it doesn't trigger any checksum fault.
> So, it is probably a different case.

As I said, you need to cook a packet that the NIC is not able to L4
checksum-verify.

Maybe an encapsulated packet could do the trick, but only Mellanox
experts can say.

>
> >
> > Note that mlx5 will presumably set CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for standard protocols,
> > so if you want to reproduce the issue, you might need to find an IP frame that
> > mlx5 is not able to checksum validate.
>
> This warning is 100% reproducible with a TCP RST packet (no data)
> here, after I find the right switch which pads non-zero's. This is
> also how I verified this patch.

Sure this patch handles short frames, but I am saying the issue is
more generic than that.