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: <20250629103620.186ea33d@pumpkin>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 10:36:20 +0100
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 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, Vlad URSU <vlad@...u.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on
 TGP platform

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:05:01 +0200
Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info> 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?
> 

0xffff

With a comment saying some manufacturers don't calculate the checksum.
Then you don't needs to search the definition to find out what is going on.

	David