Re: [rfc 0/3] IPVS: checksum updates

To: "Simon Horman" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [rfc 0/3] IPVS: checksum updates
Cc: lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Siim Põder" <siim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Julian Anastasov" <ja@xxxxxx>, "Malcolm Turnbull" <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Vince Busam" <vbusam@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Herbert Xu" <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Julius Volz" <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:30:29 +0200
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:04:20PM +1000, Simon Horman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The impetus for this series of patches is Julian Anastasov noting
>> that "load balance IPv4 connections from a local process" checks
>> for 0 TCP checksums. Herbert Xu confirmed that this is not legal,
>> even on loopback traffic, but that rather partial checksums are
>> possible.
>> The first patch in this series is a proposed solution to handle
>> partial checksums for both TCP and UDP.
>> The other two patches clean things up a bit.
>> I have not tested this code beyond compilation yet.
> After extensive testing by Julius Volz and limited testing by myself, I
> have applied the first patch, which does indeed allow packets with
> PARTIAL_CHECKSUM to work, to lvs-next-2.6. I have dropped the second two
> patches which produce bogus checksums.

Great, thanks! I have tested TCP+UDP, local+remote clients, v4+v6,
NAT+DSR+TUN in all combinations that are expected to be working and
found no problems.


Julius Volz - Corporate Operations - SysOps

Google Switzerland GmbH - Identification No.: CH-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

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