[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?
From: |
Jani Monoses |
Subject: |
[lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues? |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:42:06 -0000 |
x86 can address individual bytes so there is no specific requierement
as far as correctness is concerned.
> What *is* the correct alignment for a Linux test application running on
> i686?
>
> Dirk
>
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 13:09, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > Hi
> > as Florian said it could be an alignment issue.
> > I had bad checksums because the data in httpd was not 4byte aligned.
> > In the file where those binary structs live (fsdata.c) make the structs
> > aligned with the gcc attribute feature.I used an ARM processor.
> > Jani.
> >
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > Are there any known issues with 0.5.3 with regards to checksum
> > > calculation?
> > >
> > > Specifically, I am testing my own httpd server (heavily modified from
> > > the original using the raw api) and pages don't get displayed. I am
> > > tracking this down to the fact that the responding packet of data is
> > > sent, but packet sniffing software says it has an invalid tcp checksum
> > > and my PC isn't ACKing. The data just keeps getting resent with the same
> > > incorrect checksum.
> > >
> > > The main index web page supplied in the lwIP archive works ok, others
> > > don't, so it seems to depend on the data content.
> > >
> > > What's strange is I had tested this code and it works under the win32
> > > port (and still does work) - although due to different timings the exact
> > > sequence of events are different.
> > >
> > > What's even more annoying is that I have compared the ROM pbuf checksum
> > > total with the win32 port's ROM pbuf checksum total - they are equal. I
> > > have calculated manually the TCP pbuf checksum and added this all up with
> > > the pseudo header and get the same checksum as that which was sent with
> > > the packet !! Surely the packet sniffing software and windows 2000
> > > checksum implementation is correct ? ! I can assume that can't I ? ! :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Michael Portmann
> > >
> > > HYDRA Electronic Design Solutions Pty Ltd
> > > 140 Ashley Street, Underdale, SA 5032.
> > > Ph. +61 8 8234-0477
> > > Fx. +61 8 8234-1840
> > >
> > > [This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
> > [This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
>
>
> [This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?,
Jani Monoses <=
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Michael Portmann, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Florian Schulze, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Jani Monoses, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Dirk Koopman, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Jani Monoses, 2003/01/08
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Kieran Mansley, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] RE: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Michael Portmann, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Jani Monoses, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Dirk Koopman, 2003/01/09
- [lwip-users] Re: [lwip] lwIP 0.5.3 tcp Checksum issues?, Paul Sheer, 2003/01/09