From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Brian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:20:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061110182031.GO29920@ftp.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061110180534.GN29920@ftp.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 06:05:34PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:25:53AM -0500, Brian Haley wrote:
> > >>Since the only difference between echo requests and echo replies is the
> > >>ICMPv6 type value (which is a difference of 1), just subtracting one
> > >>from the request checksum will result in the correct checksum for the
> > >>reply.
> > >
> > >Um, no. That will *not* result in correct checksum. Please, RTFRFC 1071.
> >
> > I verified this works for echo request/reply on my IA64 box,
> > double-checked with ethereal/wireshark. Is there something specific in
> > RFC 1071 that I should be looking for?
>
> Definition of checksum.
>
> See also include/net/ip.h::ip_decrease_ttl() for similar situation.
Note that even on little-endian you want
3 -> 2
2 -> 1
1 -> 0xffff
0 -> 0xfffe
On big-endian you get
0x102 -> 2
0x101 -> 1
0x100 -> 0xffff
0xff -> 0xfffe
...
0 -> 0xfeff
so -= 1 is broken even on ia64 and it's *always* broken on big-endian
boxen.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-10 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-08 22:13 why do we mangle checksums for v6 ICMP? Al Viro
2006-11-08 22:28 ` Al Viro
2006-11-09 17:32 ` Brian Haley
2006-11-09 23:14 ` David Miller
2006-11-10 16:24 ` [PATCH] IPv6: only modify checksum for UDP Brian Haley
2006-11-10 17:54 ` David Stevens
2006-11-14 0:50 ` David Miller
2006-11-14 1:18 ` Al Viro
2006-11-14 1:44 ` David Stevens
2006-11-14 1:52 ` Al Viro
2006-11-10 22:55 ` David Miller
2006-11-10 23:17 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2006-11-10 23:26 ` David Miller
2006-11-10 23:36 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2006-11-12 1:30 ` Brian Haley
2006-11-10 16:25 ` [PATCH] IPv6: optimize echo reply checksum calculation Brian Haley
2006-11-10 17:34 ` Al Viro
2006-11-10 17:51 ` Brian Haley
2006-11-10 18:05 ` Al Viro
2006-11-10 18:20 ` Al Viro [this message]
2006-11-10 19:04 ` Brian Haley
2006-11-10 19:17 ` Al Viro
2006-11-10 21:06 ` Brian Haley
2006-11-11 1:45 ` Al Viro
2006-11-11 18:07 ` why do we mangle checksums for v6 ICMP? Bill Fink
2006-11-13 7:04 ` David Miller
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=20061110182031.GO29920@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brian.haley@hp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).