Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 03:01 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Ben Greear wrote: Good point, so if you had: eth0 <-> raw <-> user space-bridge <-> raw <-> vethA <-> veth B <-> userspace-stub <->eth1 and user-space hub enabled this elide flag,

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 03:01 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Ben Greear wrote: Good point, so if you had: eth0 <-> raw <-> user space-bridge <-> raw <-> vethA <-> veth B <-> userspace-stub <->eth1 and user-space hub enabled this elide flag, things would work, right?

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface >> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to >> follow it. Broken checksum

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface >> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to >> follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Ben Greear wrote: >> >> Good point, so if you had: >> >> eth0 <-> raw <-> user space-bridge <-> raw <-> vethA <-> veth B <-> >> userspace-stub <->eth1 >> >> and user-space hub enabled this elide flag, things would work, right? >> Then, it

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Ben Greear wrote: >> >> Good point, so if you had: >> >> eth0 <-> raw <-> user space-bridge <-> raw <-> vethA <-> veth B <-> >> userspace-stub <->eth1 >> >> and user-space hub enabled this elide flag, things would work, right? >> Then, it seems like what we need

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 02:36 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 02:36 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 02:13 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to follow it.

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface >> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to >> follow it. Broken

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > > On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface >> to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to >> follow it. Broken checksum processing is really

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and debug. CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and debug. CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

[oops – resending this because I was using gmail in HTML mode before by accident] There was a discussion on a separate thread about this. I agree with Sabrina fully. I believe veth should provide an abstraction layer that correctly emulates a physical network in all ways. Consider an environment

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

[oops – resending this because I was using gmail in HTML mode before by accident] There was a discussion on a separate thread about this. I agree with Sabrina fully. I believe veth should provide an abstraction layer that correctly emulates a physical network in all ways. Consider an environment

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and debug. CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some number of _specific_ checksums (indicated by

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

We've put considerable effort into cleaning up the checksum interface to make it as unambiguous as possible, please be very careful to follow it. Broken checksum processing is really hard to detect and debug. CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY means that some number of _specific_ checksums (indicated by

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: Hello, http://dmz2.candelatech.com/?p=linux-4.4.dev.y/.git;a=commitdiff;h=8153e983c0e5eba1aafe1fc296248ed2a553f1ac;hp=454b07405d694dad52e7f41af5816eed0190da8a Actually, no, this is not

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: Hello, http://dmz2.candelatech.com/?p=linux-4.4.dev.y/.git;a=commitdiff;h=8153e983c0e5eba1aafe1fc296248ed2a553f1ac;hp=454b07405d694dad52e7f41af5816eed0190da8a Actually, no, this is not

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > Hello, > > 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed,

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 12:29 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > Hello, > > 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed,

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 06:45 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/28/2016 03:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: [...] > > Your use case is invalid, it just happened to work because of a > > bug.  If you want the stack to fill checksums so that you want capture > > and reinject packets, you have to

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 06:45 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/28/2016 03:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: [...] > > Your use case is invalid, it just happened to work because of a > > bug.  If you want the stack to fill checksums so that you want capture > > and reinject packets, you have to

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/28/2016 03:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: Hello, 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/26/2016 04:02

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/28/2016 03:29 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: Hello, 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/26/2016 04:02

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

Hello, 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

Hello, 2016-04-27, 17:14:44 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. I

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/27/2016 05:00 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. I

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me > > > know. > > I would be careful about this.  

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 27, 2016, at 20:07, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me > > > know. > > I would be careful about this.  

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > I would be careful about this.  It causes regressions when sending > PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 08:59 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > 3.2.80-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > I would be careful about this.  It causes regressions when sending > PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. I would be careful about this. It causes regressions when sending PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices. There was a proposed upstream fix for the

Re: [PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

On 04/26/2016 04:02 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: 3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. I would be careful about this. It causes regressions when sending PACKET_SOCKET buffers from user-space to veth devices. There was a proposed upstream fix for the

[PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. -- From: Vijay Pandurangan [ Upstream commit ce8c839b74e3017996fad4e1b7ba2e2625ede82f ] Packets that arrive from real hardware devices have ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY if the

[PATCH 3.2 085/115] veth: don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good.

3.2.80-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. -- From: Vijay Pandurangan [ Upstream commit ce8c839b74e3017996fad4e1b7ba2e2625ede82f ] Packets that arrive from real hardware devices have ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY if the hardware verified