From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: why do we mangle checksums for v6 ICMP?
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:28:49 +0000
Message-ID: <20061108222849.GJ29920@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: <20061108221332.GI29920@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:44471 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423813AbWKHW2v
	(ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:28:51 -0500
Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1Ghvub-0008AM-He
	for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:28:49 +0000
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20061108221332.GI29920@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:13:32PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 	AFAICS, the rules are:
> 
> (1) checksum is 16-bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of
> relevant 16bit words.
> 
> (2) for v4 UDP all-zeroes has special meaning - no checksum; if you get
> it from (1), send all-ones instead.
> 
> (3) for v6 UDP we have the same remapping as in (2), but all-zeroes has
> different meaning - not "ignore checksum" as in v4, but "reject the
> packet".
> 
> (4) there is no (4).
> 
> 	IOW, nobody except UDP has any business doing that 0->0xffff
> replacement.  However, we have
>        if (icmp6h->icmp6_cksum == 0)
>                icmp6h->icmp6_cksum = -1;
> and similar in net/ipv6/raw.c
> 
> AFAICS, both went in with (commit ID by linux-hist repository)
> commit 6bac90985c8b65ffc25839c001aa7ef4831d2915
> Author: Kazunori Miyazawa <kazunori@miyazawa.org>
> Date:   Mon May 12 00:21:19 2003 -0700
> 
>     [IPV4]: Introduce ip6_append_data.
> 
> That changeset has very similar changes done in udp.c, icmp.c and raw.c;
> remapping of UDP checksum used to be in the area affected by the changeset
> and it looks like it got not just preserved in udp.c (as it should), but
> copied to icmp.c and raw.c instances.
> 
> So... is it really needed there?

While we are at it, shouldn't ip_nat_mangle_udp_packet() do the same
remapping in
        } else
                udph->check = nf_proto_csum_update(*pskb,
                                                   htons(oldlen) ^ htons(0xFFFF),
                                                   htons(datalen),
                                                   udph->check, 1);
branch?  Note that udp_manip_pkt() does it in the same situation...