On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 07:27 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> if (!uh->check && !udp_sk(sk)->no_check6_rx) {
> udp6_csum_zero_error(skb);
> goto csum_error;
> }
Yeah, I'd found no_check6_rx already, was still trying to
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 07:24 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually test this yet. I
> > also
> > didn't find the code that would drop frames with CSUM 0 either, so
> > I'm
> > thinking - for now - th
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 07:24 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually test this yet. I also
> > didn't find the code that would drop frames with CSUM 0 either, so I'm
> > thinking - for now - that if al
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 15:49 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually test this yet. I also
> didn't find the code that would drop frames with CSUM 0 either, so I'm
> thinking - for now - that if all the csum handling is skipped, dropping
> 0 csum frames would al
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 06:45 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:49 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > Oops, sorry - receive. We can only indicate "CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY",
> > nothing more advanced right now, but right now we'd indicate that
> > if
> > the packet had 0x in the c
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:49 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Oops, sorry - receive. We can only indicate "CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY",
> nothing more advanced right now, but right now we'd indicate that if
> the packet had 0x in the checksum field, but should've had 0x.
>
> On TX I believe we actu
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 05:44 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:27 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It looks like right now we may have a hardware bug and accept
> > 0x as
> > valid, when the outcome of the calculation is 0x.
> >
> > What do you think we shoul
On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 14:27 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It looks like right now we may have a hardware bug and accept 0x as
> valid, when the outcome of the calculation is 0x.
>
> What do you think we should do about this?
>
> We could ignore the issue entirely, since 0 wasn't
