From: Herbert Xu
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:01:42 +0800
> When we calculate the checksum on the recv path, we store the
> result in the skb as an optimisation in case we need the checksum
> again down the line.
>
> This is in fact bogus for the MSG_PEEK case as this is done without
> any locking.
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 20:01 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> ---8<---
> When we calculate the checksum on the recv path, we store the
> result in the skb as an optimisation in case we need the checksum
> again down the line.
>
> This is in fact bogus for the MSG_PEEK case as this is done without
> any
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:01:42PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> PS we seem to no longer use the hardware checksum in case of
> CHECKSUM_COMPLETE, I wonder why that is?
Nevermind, it's still there. I was just looking in the wrong place.
--
Email: Herbert Xu
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:31:00PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:28:19AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > Except that udp checksum are checked outside of spinlock protection.
>
> Good point. I wonder when this got broken. I'll do some digging.
OK looks like I can claim
