From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [IPV6] RAW: Add checksum default defines for MH. Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:59:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20070123.225953.35016491.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20070123.221918.35467190.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nakam@linux-ipv6.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, takamiya@po.ntts.co.jp, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:59631 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933178AbXAXG76 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:59:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Herbert Xu Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:56:23 +1100 > David Miller wrote: > > > > Did a complete agreement occur that this patch is ok? > > My only concern is that we're putting an arbitrary list of > protocols in the generic raw.c. What's the justification > for including these protocols in particular but not others? > > Is there any reason why the application can't just use the > existing IPV6_CHECKSUM socket option to set the same fields? My understanding in the MH case is that the kernel is going to make changes to the header that the user can't predict and thus it's impossible for them to set the correct checksum. I don't know what the justification is for ICMP6 though :-)