netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 1/5] netlink: specs: Add XDP RX checksum capability to XDP metadata specs

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: <20250926174118.23a054a7@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 17:41:18 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel
 Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Alexander Lobakin
 <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin
 KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP
 Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Maciej Fijalkowski
 <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 1/5] netlink: specs: Add XDP RX checksum
 capability to XDP metadata specs

On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 11:53:25 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> What do people think: Do we leave it as an exercise to the BPF-developer
> to deduct hardware detected a wrong/failed checksum, as that is possible
> as described above.  Or do we introduce a CHECKSUM_FAILED?

I vote we leave it unless someone has a strong use case for FAILED.
Checksumming and dropping packets should be pretty cheap, it's not
worth complicating the stack with another option.