On 9/9/24 21:01, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Sep 2024 13:26:42 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> > > This seems to be a bug in the driver. >> > > >> > > A call to skb_put_padto(skb, ETH_ZLEN) should be added. >> > >> > In which case this test detecting it may be nice to have, for lack of >> > a more targeted test. >> >> IIUC we're basically saying that we don't need to trim because pad >> should be 0? In that case maybe let's keep the patch but add a check >> on top which scans the pad for non-zero bytes, and print an informative >> warning? > > Data arriving with padding probably deserves a separate test. > > We can use this csum test as stand-in, I suppose. > > Is it safe to assume that all padding is wrong on ingress, not just > non-zero padding. The ip stack itself treats it as benign and trims > the trailing bytes silently. > > I do know of legitimate cases of trailer data lifting along. Ideally we would test that - Ingress padding is ignored. - Egress padding does not leak past the buffer. The easiest way to handle this would be to check that it is constant (e.g. all the padding uses the same value), but this could have false-positives for e.g. timestamps. --Sean
