David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly. But *he* doesn't need to check that checksum, given that he already
> got the packet, since he has an upper-level checksum. He is not saying that
> his reasoning applies to everyone, just that it applies to him. He is not
> talking about
> David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
> >> on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
> >> the pseudo-header is helping with.
> > So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten
> > to
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
the pseudo-header is helping with.
So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten
to him. If it
got to
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. But *he* doesn't need to check that checksum, given that he already
got the packet, since he has an upper-level checksum. He is not saying that
his reasoning applies to everyone, just that it applies to him. He is not
talking about disabling
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
>> on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
>> the pseudo-header is helping with.
>
> So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten to him. If it
>
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
the pseudo-header is helping with.
So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten to him. If it
got to him in
> Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
> on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
> the pseudo-header is helping with.
So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten to him. If it
got to him in error, he'll reject it anyway. The
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:17:40 -0500
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
> > Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> >
> >> SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is
Regardless of whatever verifications your application is doing
on the data, it is not checksumming the ports and that's what
the pseudo-header is helping with.
So what? We are in the case where the data has already gotten to him. If it
got to him in error, he'll reject it anyway. The receive
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:17:40 -0500
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:34:03 +0800), Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > For those interested, I am dealing with a UDP app that already does very
> > strong checksumming and encryption, so
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> For those interested, I am dealing with a UDP app that already does very
> strong checksumming and encryption, so additional software checksumming
> at the lower layers is quite simply a waste of CPU cycles. Hardware
>
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff Garzik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
Disagree. UDP checksum is mandatory in
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500
>
> SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
> based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
>
> I wonder if IPv4's CHECKSUM_PARTIAL check from udp_push_pending_frames()
> also needs to be copied
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:20:51PM +, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
> Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> >
> > SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
> > based on a reading of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
> based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
Disagree. UDP checksum is mandatory in IPv6.
--yoshfuji
-
To
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
I wonder if IPv4's CHECKSUM_PARTIAL check from udp_push_pending_frames()
also needs to be copied to IPv6?
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/ipv6/udp.c | 10
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
I wonder if IPv4's CHECKSUM_PARTIAL check from udp_push_pending_frames()
also needs to be copied to IPv6?
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
net/ipv6/udp.c | 10
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
Disagree. UDP checksum is mandatory in IPv6.
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:20:51PM +, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff
Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
I wonder if IPv4's CHECKSUM_PARTIAL check from udp_push_pending_frames()
also needs to be copied to IPv6?
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:45:32 -0500), Jeff Garzik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
SO_NO_CHECK support for IPv6 appeared to be missing. This is presented,
based on a reading of net/ipv4/udp.c.
Disagree. UDP checksum is mandatory in IPv6.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
For those interested, I am dealing with a UDP app that already does very
strong checksumming and encryption, so additional software checksumming
at the lower layers is quite simply a waste of CPU cycles. Hardware
checksumming is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:34:03 +0800), Herbert Xu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
For those interested, I am dealing with a UDP app that already does very
strong checksumming and encryption, so additional
24 matches
Mail list logo
