From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: LRO restructuring? Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080811.183913.09225669.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080811.175434.215224347.davem@davemloft.net> <20080812010004.GD18547@gondor.apana.org.au> <48A0E7A3.6030200@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, gallatin@myri.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, brice@myri.com To: rick.jones2@hp.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:58281 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750852AbYHLBjM (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:39:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48A0E7A3.6030200@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Rick Jones Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:11 -0700 > Even if it was verified I think you want to keep the checksums from the > header. Since an intermediate device isn't supposed to be peeking at > the TCP part anyway, it wouldn't do to drop the segment ourselves, pass > it along to be dropped by the ultimate reciever. And if there is > something amis in the verification or the regeneration, we don't want to > introduce silent data corruption. > > Likely that also goes for the IP header checksum... IP header is a little different, intermediate nodes should verify it (and we do adjust it when decrementing TTL).