netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on TGP platform

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: <20250625170050.GJ1562@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:00:50 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Vlad URSU <vlad@...u.me>
Cc: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on
 TGP platform

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 05:06:44PM +0300, Vlad URSU wrote:
> On 25.06.2025 16:05, Jacek Kowalski wrote:
> > > > > > +#define NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT 0xFFFF
> > > > > 
> > > > > Perhaps it is too long, but I liked Vlad's suggestion of naming this
> > > > > NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT.
> > 
> > So the proposals are:
> > 
> > 1. NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> > 2. NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> > 3. NVM_CHECKSUM_INVALID
> > 4. NVM_CHECKSUM_MISSING
> > 5. NVM_CHECKSUM_EMPTY
> > 6. NVM_NO_CHECKSUM
> > 
> > Any other contenders?
> > 
> 
> For reference, I called it "CHECKSUM_WORD" in my proposal because that's
> what it's refered to as in the intel documentation (section 10.3.2.2 - http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/ethernet-connection-i219-datasheet.pdf)
> 

FWIIW, I'd vote for 1.