From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 5 4:48:41 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54AA37B401; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5268343FA3; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:48:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from dialup-209.245.138.78.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.245.138.78] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18qYK3-0007Z1-00; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:48:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3E65EE57.BBD230B4@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:32:23 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Murray Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version References: <200303051118.h25BIHIg043714@grimreaper.grondar.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4d3422fd38a98687d5c9b769ca125679e548b785378294e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mark Murray wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Mark Murray wrote: > > > Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix? > > > > Is "tested" a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it > > stay in the tree? > > Both. Cool. Then I have a long list of things that can be fixed or removed. This whole thing about netns started 3 days ago. How many days after code is questioned does someone have to fix it before it is it OK to dike it out? > > Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remove all > > code that does not meet that criteria... > > Be careful of your interpretation of my answer. State _all_ your > premises, and be careful not to use any undeclared ones. Do not hold > me to any premise that I have not agreed to. > > All broken code needs to be fixed XOR removed. All fixes need to be > tested. All code in the tree needs to be tested often to ensure that > it is not broken. Let' start wth the libalias/natd incremental checksum update code; the code is based on RFC1141, instead of RFC1624. As a result, it get updated incorrectly occasionally, because it's using two's complement instead of one's complement math. Per RFC1642: RFC 1141 yields an updated header checksum of -0 when it should be +0. This is because it assumed that one's complement has a distributive property, which does not hold when the result is 0 (see derivation of [Eqn. 2]). People see this as hands on FTP installs, etc., going through FreeBSD based NAT's. It's very obvious ad easy to repeat: 1) Put a printf in tcp_input.c that compalins when the checksum is incorect. 2) Do a CVSup from that machine through a FreeBSD NAT How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out, and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message