Re: veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 03/24/2016 10:33 PM, Cong Wang wrote:

> Here we go:
>
> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> index 1ecfa71..ab66080 100644
> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> @@ -1925,6 +1925,7 @@ static int packet_sendmsg_spkt(struct socket
> *sock, struct msghdr *msg,
>                  goto out_unlock;
>          }
>
> +       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
>          skb->protocol = proto;
>          skb->dev = dev;
>          skb->priority = sk->sk_priority;
> @@ -2496,6 +2497,7 @@ static int tpacket_fill_skb(struct packet_sock
> *po, struct sk_buff *skb,
>
>          ph.raw = frame;
>
> +       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
>          skb->protocol = proto;
>          skb->dev = dev;
>          skb->priority = po->sk.sk_priority;
> @@ -2805,6 +2807,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *packet_alloc_skb(struct
> sock *sk, size_t prepad,
>          skb_put(skb, linear);
>          skb->data_len = len - linear;
>          skb->len += len - linear;
> +       skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
>
>          return skb;
>   }

I have tested UDP, TCP, TCPv6 and custom Ethernet frames across a veth pair.

And, UDP, TCP, and pktgen across a pair of veth pairs
bridged by my user-space packet filter.

All of these tests work fine with your patch as far as I can tell.

So, you can add:

Tested-by: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>

That said, it could easily break some drivers and/or other scenarios that I
have not tested, so at the least it should cook a while upstream before going into the
stable tree....

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com