From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix checksum verification
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:50:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130809085019.GT6104@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130809073237.GA26614@pengutronix.de>
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@tkos.co.il>
> > ---
> >
> > 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;
with
return net_checksum(ptr, len) + 1
net_checksum_ok returns always something >0 (i.e. success) because both
summands are converted to unsigned, and so never catches an error[1],
does it?
> U-Boot has this instead:
>
> return !((net_checksum(ptr, len) + 1) & 0xfffe);
>
> From what I see both above should be equivalent so I wonder why U-Boot
> has such a complicated code here. Some compiler optimization or is this
> something I don't see?
This isn't equivalent. The U-Boot code returns 1 iff net_checksum
returns 0 or 0xffff; 0 otherwise.
Best regards
Uwe
[1] well unless unsigned is only 16 bits wide which shouldn't be the case on
all platforms barebox is running on.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-09 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-09 4:01 Baruch Siach
2013-08-09 7:32 ` Sascha Hauer
2013-08-09 8:50 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2013-08-09 8:57 ` Sascha Hauer
2013-08-09 10:16 ` Baruch Siach
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=20130809085019.GT6104@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
/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