netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: add CHECKSUM

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: <9a08dbc8-3423-99b5-3840-feab6703f84c@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:32:59 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: add CHECKSUM_COMPLETE to bpf test
 progs

On 6/13/24 1:18 PM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 12/06/2024 15:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:58:50 -0700 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>>> @@ -1060,9 +1062,19 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
>>>           __skb_push(skb, hh_len);
>>>       if (is_direct_pkt_access)
>>>           bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb);
>>> +
>>>       ret = convert___skb_to_skb(skb, ctx);
>>>       if (ret)
>>>           goto out;
>>> +
>>> +    if (kattr->test.flags & BPF_F_TEST_SKB_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) {
>>> +        const int off = skb_network_offset(skb);
>>> +        int len = skb->len - off;
>>> +
>>> +        skb->csum = skb_checksum(skb, off, len, 0);
>>> +        skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE;
>>> +    }
>>
>> Looks good, overall, although I'd be tempted to place this before
>> the L2 is pushed, a few lines up, so that we don't need to worry
>> about network offset. Then again, with you approach there is a nice
>> symmetry between the pre- and post- if blocks so either way is fine:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> 
> Could you please take a look and merge the series?

Looks good, done now, thanks Vadim!