lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] [net]: Fix skb->csum update in inet_proto_csum_replace16().
From
Date
On 1/23/20 9:21 AM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>> On 1/22/20 12:43 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
>>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
>>>>> @@ -449,9 +464,6 @@ void inet_proto_csum_replace16(__sum16 *sum, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>>> if (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL) {
>>>>> *sum = csum_fold(csum_partial(diff, sizeof(diff),
>>>>> ~csum_unfold(*sum)));
>>>>> - if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_COMPLETE && pseudohdr)
>>>>> - skb->csum = ~csum_partial(diff, sizeof(diff),
>>>>> - ~skb->csum);
>>>>
>>>> What is the technical rationale in removing this here but not in any of the
>>>> other inet_proto_csum_replace*() functions? You changelog has zero analysis
>>>> on why here but not elsewhere this change would be needed?
>>>
>>> Right, I think it could be dropped everywhere BUT there is a major caveat:
>>>
>>> At least for the nf_nat case ipv4 header manipulation (which uses the other
>>> helpers froum utils.c) will eventually also update iph->checksum field
>>> to account for the changed ip addresses.
>>>
>>> And that update doesn't touch skb->csum.
>>>
>>> So in a way the update of skb->csum in the other helpers indirectly account
>>> for later ip header checksum update.
>>>
>>> At least that was my conclusion when reviewing the earlier incarnation
>>> of the patch.
>>
>> Mainly asking because not inet_proto_csum_replace16() but the other ones are
>> exposed via BPF and they are all in no way fundamentally different to each
>> other, but my concern is that depending on how the BPF prog updates the csums
>> things could start to break. :/
>
> I'm reasonably sure removing the skb->csum update from the other
> helpers will also break ipv4 nat :)
>
> So, AFAIU from what you're saying above the patch seems fine as-is and
> just needs a more verbose commit message explaining why replace16()
> doesn't update skb->csum while all the other ones do.
>
> Is that correct?

Probably better a comment in the code to avoid confusion on why it's not done in
inet_proto_csum_replace16() but all the other cases; mainly to avoid some folks
in future sending random cleanup patches w/ removal attempts.

Thanks,
Daniel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-23 15:21    [W:0.076 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site