Development discussion of WireGuard
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rouven Czerwinski <rouven@czerwinskis.de>
To: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-wireguard@employees.org>
Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com
Subject: Re: UDP checksums and inband control messages
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:36:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a7w4rwuu.fsf@czerwinskis.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180220010520.GA38119@accordion.employees.org>


Hello,

Derek Fawcus <dfawcus+lists-wireguard@employees.org> writes:

> I see from the code that currently the kernel UDP sockets
> have checksums enabled.  I also note the message from
> November speculating upon if in band control messages
> should be added.
>
> One thing I was pondering recently in the context of UDP tunnelling,
> is that one doesn't really need to have UDP checksums on the
> encapsulating packet, since they payload itself is eventually
> protected by its IPv4 header checksum, and likewise its transport
> payload being protected by its own TCP/UDP/etc checksum.
> [OK - some exceptions, but valid to a first approximation]

This is only correct for IPv4, IPv6 does not have a checksum field
(coincidentally because all high level protocols implement their own
checksum).

> In the case of a crypto tunnel tunnel when using a
> verified / authenticated crypto algorithm, any lower level
> UDP checksum is even more redundent.

Yes, but computing the UDP Checksum is really inexpensive in contrast to
the authentication done on a packet with the correct checksum.

>
> The one place where UDP checksums would stil seem to be useful
> is for any in band control messages, if they were themselves
> not covered by the crypto layer.  i.e. c.f. OpenVPN and
> its payload vs control messages.
>
> Which then got me to thinking that one could sort of cheat,
> and use the checksum field in the UDP header as an indicator
> of if the payload is control or data.  All zero bits for
> data, none zero (including 0xffff) for control.
>
> This would also have the advantage that if one is using a system
> without support for h/w checksum offload, one gets to save a
> bit of CPU;  however that may or may not be significant depending
> upon just if/when packet memory if touched, and by which cores
> in a system.  i.e. I'm pondering a non Linux kernel implementation.
>
> So - thoughts?  Is it worth doing something like this for wireguard?

Greetings,
Rouven Czerwinski

      reply	other threads:[~2018-02-20  6:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-20  1:05 Derek Fawcus
2018-02-20  6:36 ` Rouven Czerwinski [this message]

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=87a7w4rwuu.fsf@czerwinskis.de \
    --to=rouven@czerwinskis.de \
    --cc=dfawcus+lists-wireguard@employees.org \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /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).