Re: Reproducable 2.1.95 checksum error

Benny Amorsen (amorsen@sscnet.com)
17 Apr 1998 21:29:41 +0200


>>>>> "MR" == Meelis Roos <mroos@tartu.cyber.ee> writes:

>>>>> "L" == <linker@nightshade.ml.org> writes:

L>> Isn't it against some RFC to log bad checksums? It certantly does
L>> no good for logs.. I was under the impression that this was a
L>> debugging feature that would go away with 2.2? Though it should
L>> perhaps stay as a /proc/sysctl option..

MR> Yes, AFAIK this is a debugging feature that will probably go away.
MR> But You can't say that it's no good - it's one of the things that
MR> helps You to see that something is wrong somehere. (yes, I know
MR> the ifconfig output, but how often do You check it?)

I was specifically talking about the ifconfig output, or rather its
equivalent /proc/net/dev.

Does the 2.0 kernel not increment the error count when it receives a
frame with a bad checksum? -- If a standard says that bad checksums
must not be counted, the standard is broken and should not be
followed.

The actual logging to syslog of wrong checksums is bad, of course, and
should go for 2.2. I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise.

Benny

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu