[Top] [All Lists]

Re: skb_checksum_help

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: skb_checksum_help
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:07:59 +1100
Cc: David Coulson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kaber@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050124234515.GA31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050124005348.GL23931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <E1Cst4o-0007bD-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050123202715.281ac87c.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124121610.GP23931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F50B6C.6010107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124151510.GV23931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124225423.GA15405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050124234515.GA31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:45:15AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> I don't quite understand how this solves the problem. How could
> ip_summed be non zero after ip_forward? The earliest possible call
> to ip_fragment is in postrouting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

ip_forward only sets ip_summed for the packet at the head.  It does
not clear ip_summed for the fragments themselves.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>