lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 19:02 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:53 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>>>> David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:50:15 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to whether or not to do it in the drivers/hardware or in the
>>>>>> LRO code, I favor doing it in the LRO code just so that it is not
>>>>>> missed in some driver.
>>>>> Then there is no point in the hardware doing the check, if
>>>>> we're going to check it anyways.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's part of my point about why this check doesn't belong
>>>>> here.
>>>> What hardware does an explicit check for fragmentation?
>>> Any that implements TCP/UDP checksumming properly.
>> How many do?
>
> Good question. ;-)
>
>>>> In most cases, aren't we just relying on the hardware checksum
>>>> to be wrong on fragmented packets? That works 99.999% of the time,
>>>> but the TCP checksum is pretty weak, and it is possible to
>>>> have a fragmented packet where the first fragment has the same
>>>> checksum as the entire packet.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> If your hardware/firmware wrongly claims to be able to verify the
>>> TCP/UDP checksum for an IP fragment, it seems to me you should deal with
>>> that in your driver or fix the firmware.
>> We do partial checksums.
>
> So you should check for IP fragmentation in your get_frag_header() along
> with all the other checks you've got to do.

Indeed, and that is the patch I intend to submit if the fragment
check in inet_lro is rejected. I still think the check belongs
in the inet lro code though, and I'm worried it is being rejected
for the wrong reasons..

Drew


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-02 15:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site