netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Fix checksumming on GSO of SCTP 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZiUiM1tlM3smXSsR@pirotess>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:26:59 +0200
From: Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de>
To: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Firo Yang <firo.yang@...e.com>,
	Andreas Taschner <andreas.taschner@...e.com>,
	Michal Kubeček <mkubecek@...e.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Fix checksumming on GSO of SCTP packets

On 21/Apr/2024 14:01, Julian Anastasov wrote:
<...>
> 	Thanks for the fix, I'll accept this but skb_is_gso_sctp()
> has comment for pre-condition: skb_is_gso(skb). Can you send v2
> with it?

Thanks; sent!

> 	I'm guessing what should be the Fixes line, may be?:
> 
> Fixes: 90017accff61 ("sctp: Add GSO support")

This seems like the right one.

> 	because SCTP GSO was added after the IPVS code? Or the
> more recent commit d02f51cbcf12 which adds skb_is_gso_sctp ?

That doesn't seem related at all.

Do we need to check .gso_type in cases like this?