From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 01:35:55 -0800 Message-Id: <199812220935.BAA09166@dm.cobaltmicro.com> From: "David S. Miller" To: Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be CC: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org In-reply-to: (message from Geert Uytterhoeven on Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:21:58 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: TCPv4 checksum errors References: Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:21:58 +0100 (CET) From: Geert Uytterhoeven > of a specific packet with a bad checksum generated by Linux/PPC? cassandra kernel: TCPv4 bad checksum from 10.0.24.8:03ff to 10.0.24.4:0201, len=20/20/40 (10.0.24.8 is CHRP, 10.0.24.4 is Amiga) My suggestion is that since you can reproduce it, you should add code next to this printk statement which dumps the entire packet in HEX to the console. Then you can see what and who is at fault and where. If the packet is sufficiently small you can walk the checksum algorithm by hand and verify it for this test case. In any event this should allow you to say a lot more about this situation, I hear about it a lot and if I were a PPC or m68k developer I would not let it go for this long, especially if I could reproduce it on my own friggin' machine! BTW, do all of the PPC's which exhibit the behavior use the same ethernet controller? Later, David S. Miller davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]