On 03/24/2016 10:06 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> wrote:
On 03/24/2016 06:44 PM, Vijay Pandurangan wrote:
Oops, I think my last email didn't go through due to an inadvertent
html attachment from my phone mail client.
Can you send us a copy of a packet you're sending and/or confirm that
the IP and UDP4 checksums are set correctly in the packet?
If those are set right, I think we need to read through the networking
code again to see why this is broken...
Wireshark decodes the packet as having no checksum errors.
I think the contents of the packet is correct, but the 'ip_summed'
field is set incorrectly to 'NONE' when transmitting on a raw packet
socket.
Yeah, these bugs are all due to the different interpretations of
ip_summed on TX path and RX path. I think the following patch
should work, if the comments don't mislead me. Could you give
it a try?
For the long term, we need to unify the meaning of ip_summed
on TX path and RX path, or at least translate it in skb_scrub_packet().
I can test this tomorrow, but I think it will not work. I'm not sending raw
IP frames, I'm sending full ethernet frames. Socket is PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW.
Your patch may still be useful for others though?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
