This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RedBoot: __eth_install_handler?

To: Gary Thomas <gthomas at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: [ECOS] RedBoot: __eth_install_handler?
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew dot lunn at ascom dot ch>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:13:23 +0100
Cc: Grant Edwards <grante at visi dot com>, ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <20010122161351.A26689@visi.com> <XFMail.20010122155113.gthomas@cambridge.redhat.com>

> > The only way for that to happen would be for another host to
> > intentionally send a short Ethernet frame (AFAIK). Even if that
> > happens it should be caught by the checksum verification,
> > right?
> >
> 
> That would certainly be true - the checksum routines will try
> and access the advertised length of data.  I see no way that the
> computed value would match if the actual data was too short.

Depends if your hardware is broken, leaves checksum verification to
the software, or passes runt packets up. Its a bad assumption to
make. It was made once before and it broken when the i82559 broke this
assumption for promisc mode.

        Andrew

References:
- Re: RedBoot: __eth_install_handler?
  - From: Grant Edwards
- Re: RedBoot: __eth_install_handler?
  - From: Gary Thomas

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]