Hi Sascha,
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:01:24AM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Checksum verification on data including its own checksum (as is the case with
> > IP headers) should give zero. Current code works well for the correct checksum
> > case, but fails to identify (most) errors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Untested. From code inspection only.
> >
> > net/net.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c
> > index 0bd9084..bd7a578 100644
> > --- a/net/net.c
> > +++ b/net/net.c
> > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static unsigned int net_ip_id;
> >
> > int net_checksum_ok(unsigned char *ptr, int len)
> > {
> > - return net_checksum(ptr, len) + 1;
> > + return net_checksum(ptr, len) == 0;
>
> D'oh. There's a bug indeed. For a good packet net_checksum returns
> 0xffff (all ones in an u16). So the check should be:
>
> return net_checksum(ptr, len) == 0xffff;
You're right, of course. I was just blindly copying the kernel that has this
in ip_rcv():
if (unlikely(ip_fast_csum((u8 *)iph, iph->ihl)))
goto csum_error;
But I still don't understand the logic here.
baruch
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
