Re: Regarding summer of code 2008(writing device drivers)

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA@localhost>]

>>> I don't see why there's any more chance of [data injection] with
>>> this scheme than with normal TCP.
>> Sleeper injections, perhaps?
> I still don't see the attack.  The packet can only get into the cache
> if it's in-window for some stream, plus it passes the TCP checksum.

Oh, I misunderstood.  I thought this was done at the IP layer, not the
TCP layer.

> (Aside: we never want to cache UDP packets without checksum.  [...])

If you're doing caching at the TCP layer, you don't have to worry about
non-TCP packets.

> [...], especially when you take the probability of reuse into
> account.  (Hmm -- for NFS, it might be a very promising idea...)

Doesn't most NFS use UDP, and thus not get cached?  I certainly know
that I've seen NFS-over-TCP used seldom-to-never.

/~\ The ASCII                           der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML               mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B