Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:42:05 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     gus Gusenleitner Klaus <gus@keba.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "dsahern@kernel.org" <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amd64: Fix csum_partial_copy_generic()
Message-ID: <20231018154205.GT800259@ZenIV>
References: <VI1PR0702MB3840EB26EF2A1A35BFEA53BFD9D5A@VI1PR0702MB3840.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0702MB3840EB26EF2A1A35BFEA53BFD9D5A@VI1PR0702MB3840.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 06:18:05AM +0000, gus Gusenleitner Klaus wrote:
> The checksum calculation is wrong in case of an source buffer
> containing zero bytes only. The expected return value is 0, the
> actual return value is 0xfffffff.

Expected where?  The actual checksum is defined modulo 0xffff, so
0 and 0xffffffff represent the same final value.

The only twist is that in some situations we internally use 0 for
"not calculated yet".

> This problem occurs when a ICMP echo reply is sent that has set
> zero identifier, sequence number and data.

What problem?  Could you please either point to specific RFC or
show that packets are rejected by some existing system, or...?