On June 14, 2016 4:12:29 PM GMT+02:00, Jonas Danielsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are you asking here? Currently the non-fancy ping sets >identification to >> 0. Which is ok by RFC. The host that replies looks at that and sends >an Echo >> reply with identification of 0. The problem can arise if we have two >different >> ping applications pinging the same host, then we could get the >replies >> confused, I guess. Right now the non-fancy ping has no protection >against >> that. The fancy one uses getpid() if we think using getpid() is too >fancy for >> the non-fancy ping we could switch to a constant. But if we are >adding >> identification to non-fancy ping maybe we could add protection >against >> mismatch as well? >> > >Sorry, now I understand. The non-fancy ping does not check the icmp >Id on the ping reply. Only the fancy ping does. So I guess using >getpid() >Is moot. A non-zero constant would do. Right. So.. doesn't the initial problem of allegedly wrong checksum more sound like a bug in Linux? Maybe you can have a look. thanks, _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
