netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: optimize skb_postpull

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8ebf0214bdef4c50bff5ae19171e8e53@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:41:36 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Eric Dumazet' <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Lebrun <dlebrun@...gle.com>
CC:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: optimize skb_postpull_rcsum()

...
> > There are also 40 csum_partial(buf, len, 0).
> > If all the buffer is zero they'll return zero - invalid.
> > They ought to be changed to csum_partial(buf, len, 0xffff).
> >
> 
> Please point where all zero buffers can be valid in the first place.

They probably can't be.
But I bet a lot of the code was written without realising it mattered.

A quick scan does imply that they are all probably ok.

But I have spotted 18 ~csum_fold() - they may be dubious.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)