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

To: Julius Volz <juliusv@xxxxxxxxxx>
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: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 21:31:33 +1000
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 11:30:29AM +0200, Julius Volz wrote:
> 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.

Thanks once again for your testing. I'll send a pull request to Dave in
the morning.

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>