linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/64: Fix checksum folding in csum_tcpudp_nofold and ip_fast_csum_nofold
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 09:05:57 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161108220557.GA28587@fergus.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878tsul9jh.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:23:30PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> writes:
> 
> > These functions compute an IP checksum by computing a 64-bit sum and
> > folding it to 32 bits (the "nofold" in their names refers to folding
> > down to 16 bits).  However, doing (u32) (s + (s >> 32)) is not
> > sufficient to fold a 64-bit sum to 32 bits correctly.  The addition
> > can produce a carry out from bit 31, which needs to be added in to
> > the sum to produce the correct result.
> >
> > To fix this, we copy the from64to32() function from lib/checksum.c
> > and use that.
> 
> This seems to have been broken since ~forever. Do we just not hit that
> case very often, or do we just incorrectly report checksum failures?

I think there would be about a 1 in a billion chance of hitting it by
chance, though you could probably construct a test case that would hit
it every time.  If you did hit it in real life it would result in a
packet being dropped and presumably retransmitted, and I expect that
the IP header of the retransmitted packet would be sufficiently
different (i.e. different id field or something) that it wouldn't hit
the bug a second time.

> Should it go to stable?

Probably... though nobody has actually noticed a problem in real life
and pinned it down to this.

Paul.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-08 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-03  5:10 [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/64: Fix checksum folding in csum_tcpudp_nofold and ip_fast_csum_nofold Paul Mackerras
2016-11-03  5:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/64: Use optimized checksum routines on little-endian Paul Mackerras
2017-01-27  0:40   ` [2/2] " Michael Ellerman
2016-11-08  7:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/64: Fix checksum folding in csum_tcpudp_nofold and ip_fast_csum_nofold Michael Ellerman
2016-11-08 22:05   ` Paul Mackerras [this message]
2016-12-02  9:44 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-01-27  0:40 ` [1/2] " Michael Ellerman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161108220557.GA28587@fergus.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=paulus@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).