[dpdk-users] checksums?
N. Benes
nbenes at eso.org
Fri Apr 5 11:31:00 CEST 2019
Hi,
William Herrin:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've recently done a deep dive in to IP checksums and I've run in to
> something I don't understand. Any insight would be helpful.
>
> rte_ipv4_cksum() is implemented as:
>
> return (cksum == 0xffff) ? cksum : (uint16_t)~cksum;
>
> Which means: if the sum is zero, return -0 (0xffff) never +0 (0x0000).
> Welcome to the wonderful world of 1's complement arithmetic.
>
> RFC 1624, on the other hand, says:
>
> "In one's complement, there are two representations of zero: the all zero
> and the all one bit values, often referred to as +0 and -0. One's
> complement addition of non-zero inputs can produce -0 as a result, but
> never +0. Since there is guaranteed to be at least one non-zero field in
> the IP header, and the checksum field in the protocol header is the
> complement of the sum, the checksum field can never contain ~(+0), which is
> -0 (0xFFFF). It can, however, contain ~(-0), which is +0 (0x0000)."
>
> Which I understand to mean that +0 (0x0000) is a legal value in an IPv4
> checksum field, but -0 (0xffff) is not.
>
> Is this a bug? Is there a more authoritative source for which zero is
> correct in an IPv4 header? Please help me find the error in my
> understanding.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
Related threads:
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2019-March/004021.html
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128473.html
Cheers!
More information about the users
mailing list