From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268907AbUHUIlN (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:41:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268906AbUHUIlN (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:41:13 -0400 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:11755 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S268907AbUHUIlH (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:41:07 -0400 Subject: RE: Entirely ignoring TCP and UDP checksum in kernel level From: Lee Revell To: Denis Vlasenko Cc: Josan Kadett , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <200408211127.45076.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> References: <200408211127.45076.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093077667.854.69.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 04:41:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 04:27, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Saturday 21 August 2004 12:18, Josan Kadett wrote: > > That is not much of an intelligible idea. A way to hack the kernel could be > > found as I still presume. "Turn off checksums" but not by re-writing the > > whole tcp code in the kernel. Isn't that possible ? Linux is an operating > > system of infinite possibilities, right ? But only if you know how to hack > > it... > > Of course you can hack the kernel to do it. > > However, by replacing that box with Linux device you > get one more Linux box and you will be capable of > doing whole slew of useful things, like traffic filtering, shaping, > accounting, Ethernet bridging, etc etc etc, if/when you will need it. > You can easily debug problems with tools like tcpdump and ethereal. > I simply cannot list everything Linux can do, I don't plan to write > a novel here ;] > > I bet current 'crazy box' has nothing even vaguely resembling > these capabilities. Heck, it cannot do standard TCP properly. > So there is little reason to waste your time trying to work around it. He already stated that he was dealing with a very expensive, very broken piece of hardware, and he needs a way to work around it. Many of us have been in this situation, I will not name names ;-). Telling him to just replace it is not helpful. Lee