From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net v2] mlx5: fixup checksum for short ethernet frame padding
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:16:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpX2uidJu5ijU7NAVTHm=kNQ+ppvnABZzpbqV53ZqC0mfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181128061013.3885-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <CANn89iL4KM+VpE2ziHvppXZWhGUz-uuaMYTQPMkfxQooc4OpDw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf1-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176]:37126 "EHLO
        mail-pf1-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726368AbeK2JTt (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 04:19:49 -0500
Received: by mail-pf1-f176.google.com with SMTP id y126so2971908pfb.4
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:16:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iL4KM+VpE2ziHvppXZWhGUz-uuaMYTQPMkfxQooc4OpDw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:00 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> Nice packet of death alert.
>
> pad_len can be 0xFFFFFF67  here, if frame_len is smaller than pad_offset.

Unless IP header is malformed, how could it be?

Speaking of IP header sanity, I am totally aware of it, I don't check it because
I know get_ip_proto() doesn't check either, it must be hardware which verifies
the sanity.


>
> Really I suggest you set ip_summed to CHECKSUM_NONE, then remove the
> initial test ( if (likely(frame_len > ETH_ZLEN)) ...)
>
> Until the firmware is fixed.

Hmm, why setting to CHECKSUM_NONE could get rid of the minimum ethernet
frame check? I am lost, there is no bug for packet > ETH_ZLEN _for me_, what
needs to fix here?

Overall, you keep pushing me to fix a bug I don't observe. I don't understand
why. If you see it, please come up with your own patch? Why do I have to fix
the problem you see??


>
> Otherwise frames with a wrong checksum and some non zero padding could
> potentially
> be seen as correct frames. (Probability of 1/65536)
>
> Do not focus on your immediate problem (small packets being padded by
> a non malicious entity)

Again, why _I_ should fix a problem I never observe? Why is it not you who
fix the problem you find during code review? No to mention I have no environment
to test it even if I really want to fix. I can' take such a risk.

Thanks.