From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: dlstevens@us.ibm.com
Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: only modify checksum for UDP
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:50:58 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061113.165058.15265737.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OFF1265537.E903A772-ON88257222.006212AE-88257222.00626AB7@us.ibm.com>
From: David Stevens <dlstevens@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:54:58 -0800
> The Internet checksum is defined as a 1's-complement sum, so if the
> alternate 0 does not have a special meaning in a protocol, then by
> 1's-complement arithmetic, 0 == ~0.
> So, it looks to me without the remapping that a valid checksum
> may also fail, if it is simply computed in a different way (or on a
> different
> architecture) such that one gets 0 and one gets ~0 as un-modified answers.
> Since we're checking for equality on 2's-complement machines,
> I think the easiest thing is to still re-map it. Otherwise, instead of
> testing
> for 0, we have to test for both 0 and ~0 in the validity checks, right?
Puzzling :-) Then why is the transformation only performed for
UDP in the ipv4 stack? It seems by your logic TCP would need
to either do the "if (sum==0) sum=~0;" thing or it would need
to accept both "0" and "~0" in the checksum checking path.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-14 0:50 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 [this message]
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
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=20061113.165058.15265737.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=brian.haley@hp.com \
--cc=dlstevens@us.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/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).