netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] virtio_net: check L3 protocol for VLAN packets

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: <Yl9d2L39BzUiLINN@Laptop-X1>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:11:52 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        Mike Pattrick <mpattric@...hat.com>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Balazs Nemeth <bnemeth@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] virtio_net: check L3 protocol for VLAN packets

Hi Willem,

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:52:46AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Segmentation offload requires checksum offload. Packets that request

OK, makes sense.

> GSO but not NEEDS_CSUM are an aberration. We had to go out of our way
> to handle them because the original implementation did not explicitly
> flag and drop these. But we should not extend that to new types.

So do you mean, the current gso types are enough, we should not extend to
handle VLAN headers if no NEEDS_CSUM flag. This patch can be dropped, right?

Although I don't understand why we should not extend to support VLAN GSO.
I'm OK if you think this patch should be dropped when I re-post patch 1/2 to
net-next.

Thanks
Hangbin