[lkml]   [1997]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [2.0.x/2.1.x] Lots of ICMP error msgs
    > Letting the chips fall where they may, I quote Andi Kleen:
    > >I have seen them with broken Modems (especially ELSAs who got too hot)
    > >or terminal servers (Ascend MAX). Strictly speaking it's against the RFC
    > >anyways to log checksum errors. It's only enabled in 2.1. to catch bugs,
    > >that it is enabled in the 2.0.x masquerading code is a bug IMHO. There are
    > >many legitimate reasons why a packet might get corrupted.
    > Oh, like the kernel mis-sequencing a packet. I know it's doing it, but I
    > haven't had time to collect enough data to really prove it beyond the
    > hardware (Intel has been known to report data incorrectly, but ...)

    If you get a usable tcpdump log send it to

    > I have data to indicate the kernel getting or assembling the headers and
    > data segments exactly TWO frames out of sequence. That has explained every
    > csum (TCP csum) failure I have captured. I suspect it may be a wild race
    > condition -- an interrupt at an odd time (those are kinda hard to localize.)

    What do you mean with 'headers' and 'data segments' here? A bug in the IP-level
    fragmentation or in the TCP reassembly algorithms? This probabality is very
    low for both things: ICMP messages are never fragmented, so a fragment
    reassembly bug can't cause this (in theory a very buggy, non rfc compliant
    implementation could send fragmented ICMPs, but that's unlikely). TCP
    packets are usually not fragmented neither, unless you're dealing with a
    buggy implementation that doesn't do path mtu discovery properly (possible,
    but unlikely). When the TCP segment reassembly has a bug it'll never
    cause bad checksum messages, because TCP packets with a wrong checksum
    are thrown away early and the reassembly algorithm never sees them. If there
    really is a bug there it could be only catched by additional checksums
    at the application level, but I know of no protocol who does this.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:4.038 / U:0.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site