Re: [lwip-users] Which mbedTLS branch LWIP is supporting—only LTS or development too?

Am 9. April 2024 08:16:46 MESZ schrieb Simon Goldschmidt via lwip-users : > > >Am 8. April 2024 18:46:50 MESZ schrieb Javier Tia : >>Hi, >> >>I was trying to build LWIP with mbedTLS (development branch), but got some >>build errors; not with the mbedTLS LTS

Re: [lwip-users] Which mbedTLS branch LWIP is supporting—only LTS or development too?

Am 8. April 2024 18:46:50 MESZ schrieb Javier Tia : >Hi, > >I was trying to build LWIP with mbedTLS (development branch), but got some >build errors; not with the mbedTLS LTS branch. I like to confirm if LWIP is >only supporting the mbedTLS TLS version and not the development branch. > As

Re: [lwip-users] TCPIP thread stack size

On 28.03.2024 02:55, James Aguilar wrote: Friends, I have been playing with lwip, trying to get some various things working on my Raspberry Pi Pico W. First off, thanks very much for putting this library together. One of the interesting things I noticed when I was getting my project to

Re: [lwip-users] Assistance Required: Errors in lwiplib.c and Related Files After Upgrading LWIP from 1.4.1 to 2.2.0

On 10.01.2024 03:46, Timothy Martin via lwip-users wrote: I'm including a zip file containing all the updated headers and source files of LWIP for your reference. [..] Here are the details of the issues I'm facing: * *Error #137 in |lwiplib.c| (Path: /NetworkModule/utils)*: o

Re: [lwip-users] Problem with http connections

I'm not 100% sure what you think has changed, but the "reuseaddr" part should not have changed that much between 2.0.0 and 2.1.2 to result in this change. Regards, Simon On 09.08.2023 21:35, dwsex...@dwstech-llc.com wrote: Found solution: Apparently in LWIP 2.0.0 you could bind a socket right

Re: [lwip-users] Linker error "multiple definitions of symbol"

Have a look at the linker files for the example projects. fsdata.c is included by fs.c and not meant to be compiled and linked on its own. Regards, Simon Am 7. August 2023 11:24:27 MESZ schrieb Zeeshan Rehman | TESVOLT AG : > >Hello there, >I am trying to port lwip to Aurix Tricore TC387 kit.

Re: [lwip-users] Ping problem - lwip_sendto: invalid address

Hi, IS_SOCK_ADDR_TYPE_VALID = NO That can't work. The type should be AF_INET. However, that seems to be hidden in how you call the espressif code, where I can't help. Regards, Simon Am 4. Juli 2023 01:06:46 MESZ schrieb rangel moreira fischer via lwip-users : >Hello, >Can someone help me

Re: [lwip-users] Frequent window closing (zero window) when receiving MP3 stream

Hi Norbert, in my opinion, this is ok: what you see here is that data is coming in faster than your application can process it. That's, ok. It would be bad the other way round as you would then probably get breaks in your mp3 stream. The window being advertised as non-zero and then as zero

[lwip-users] lwIP 2.2.0-rc1

The 1st release candidate version for lwIP 2.2.0 is now available via git (using the STABLE-2_2_0_RC1 tag) or via this gitweb link: http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/snapshot/lwip-STABLE-2_2_0_RC1.tar.gz This release brings us back to releasing off the master branch (instead of using

Re: [lwip-users] Any known bugs in LWIP's internal heap?

Peter wrote: >Does anyone know if LWIP's internal heap management has this issue > >https://www.eevblog.com/forum/programming/help-needed-with-some-heap-test-code/ Ehrm, that's newlib. Why should we have the same bug? Did you meet any problems with the lwip heap? There are no known bugs

Re: [lwip-users] Errors during build of lwip in Windows

Am 17. April 2023 08:38:56 MESZ schrieb Giuseppe Modugno : >Il 15/04/2023 01:58, Giuseppe Modugno ha scritto: >[...] >> Now I enabled LWIP_MQTT_APP and I receive the following errors during build: >> >> [ 99%] Linking C executable example_app.exe >> liblwipcontribexamples.a(mqtt_example.obj):

Re: [lwip-users] icmp checksum error

On 12.04.2023 07:27, Mohammed Shahid wrote: hiii,  I am working on ti mcu tm4c1294ncpdt , i have integrated lwip stack 2.1.3  icmp ping for ping query is responding but is responding with the checksum as 0x, but in icmp.c file checksum is calculated and it is correct. Checksum being 0 is

Re: [lwip-users] mbedtls

On 13.04.2023 13:23, Giuseppe Modugno wrote: What is the latest mbedtls version that is compatible with lwip, specifically the layer altcp_tls_mbedtls.c? Sorry, the current source did not track the version which it is compatible with. But I'd gladly accept patches covering that or improving

Re: [lwip-users] mbedtls integration

On 14.04.2023 10:08, Giuseppe Modugno wrote: In the past I enabled ALTCP layer to add TLS and I used altcp_tls_mbedtls examples present in lwip repo. I thought it was the way to add TLS to lwip. Let's say it is "our" way to do that. Recently I looked at some example projects of NXP, such

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP and its keep-alive feature - does it work?

Peter wrote: > >[..] if say the server is rebooted during a connection, the >connection is not re-established. Maybe that is how it is supposed to >work Yes, that's why it is called "keepalive", not "re-establish broken connections". By the way, it's not an lwip thing but an implementation of

Re: [lwip-users] ARP forwarding

Am 13. Dezember 2022 20:19:00 MEZ schrieb "Александр via lwip-users" : > >Thank you all very much. I’v got some experience of routing frames on FPGA, >but didn’t use lwip for this purposes. Yes you are right — I need bridge. >Forwarding data is not the main function of this device but

Re: [lwip-users] ARP forwarding

Am 13. Dezember 2022 17:50:34 MEZ schrieb "Александр via lwip-users" : > >Hello! >I am trying to implement dual ethernet interface device on Xilinx baremetal >logic. I’v already implement receiving data from both of two interfaces but >now I want to realize forwarding from one interface to

Re: [lwip-users] Test offloading checksum for receive path

On 13.10.2022 12:59, Giuseppe Modugno wrote: LPC546xx MCUs have the capability to offload checksum for IP, TCP, UDP and ICMP, for outgoing and ingoing packets. I enabled the generation of checksum for IPv4 for outgoing packets and it seems working well. Now I want to enable and test checksum

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP_ALLOW_MEM_FREE_FROM_OTHER_CONTEXT

Am 10. Oktober 2022 18:32:15 MESZ schrieb Giuseppe Modugno : >I'm sorry to post again. > >I just understood LWIP_ALLOW_MEM_FREE_FROM_OTHER_CONTEX is used in mem.c for >MEM_USE_POOLS=0 and MEM_LIBC_MALLOC=0 (default lwip heap management from a >statically allocated buffer). > >What about the

Re: [lwip-users] why is my stack usage so high for the tx thread hosted by lwip?

>Op zo 18 sep. 2022 om 21:11 schreef Peter : > >> I will be amazed if you find anybody who knows what most of the >> options in the lwipopts.h file do *and* is willing to post it. LWIP is >> a typical open source piece of code, unsupported and those who >> developed it have moved on to more

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP v2.1.2 in UDP client mode gets stuck in etharp_query() after running for a long time without connection?

Am 21. September 2022 06:08:28 MESZ schrieb Lan Yang : >Hi LwIP users, > >I've been having some problems lately with lwIP v2.1.2's udp_send function. >*The problem is: * >*LwIP as UDP client gets stuck in etharp_query() after running for a long >time without connection. * Looks like yet another

Re: [lwip-users] http post using lwip?

Am 1. Juli 2022 17:48:50 MESZ schrieb Bas Prins : >Dear lwip, >I'd really appreciate some feedback on this. Would it make sense to extend >the http_client.c in such a way so that I can choose whether to create >HTTP_GET or HTTP_POST requests? Yes. > >err_t httpc_get_file_dns(const char*

Re: [lwip-users] Why is the whole ping.c surrounded by "#if LWIP_RAW" ?

Am 9. Juni 2022 11:07:15 MESZ schrieb Jonathan D : >Hello, > >I have a project with LwIP working for several services (both client and >server) and so far, I didn't need to enable LWIP_RAW. >Now, I want to ping the gateway from my device and I included the "ping" app >from the contrib

Re: [lwip-users] info hping3

I think you're on the wrong list. lwIP is not related to hping3 in any way. Regards, Simon Am 3. Mai 2022 18:09:19 MESZ schrieb "i...@outlook.com" : >Then I'll try to use "lwip" to reduce the ram consuptions. But now: >when I use the software "hping3" sending TCP packets on the port 80 or 443

Re: [lwip-users] netconn_connect returns OK when connection refused?

Am 11. April 2022 22:43:59 MESZ schrieb Grant Edwards : >On 2022-01-20, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> I'm running into a problem where netconn_connect always returns OK >> immediately, even when the connection was refused by the server (it >> replies to the SYN with a RST). Subsequent attempts to

Re: [lwip-users] Hello everybody

Am 3. April 2022 16:33:08 MESZ schrieb Florin Medeleanu via lwip-users : > [..] However I noticed the archive mail list is no longer active (and its > archive) athttp://www.sics.se/~adam/lwip/mailinglist.html That link is totally outdated. Have a look at our official page:

Re: [lwip-users] Pbuf volatile flag for received packets

Am 16. März 2022 12:26:04 MEZ schrieb Jarno Malmari : >When passing received pbuf allocated with PBUF_TYPE_FLAG_DATA_VOLATILE >(e.g. PBUF_REF) to tcpip_input(), the pbuf is immediately queued without >checking the volatile flag. > >The comment on the volatile flag says: >/** Indicates the data

Re: [lwip-users] Porting LwIP with RA6M4

Am 17. Februar 2022 18:27:38 MEZ schrieb Taha Aboud : >Hi, I am using RA6M4 for a project based on TCP connectivity and I want to >add a library(freemodbus) which works with LwIP TCP stack. >Since this MCU is using FreeRTOS+TCP stack, I want to switch to LwIP in >order to use and integrate the

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP app and multithreading

Am 17. Februar 2022 15:48:20 MEZ schrieb Jonathan D : >[..] > >Is it OK to just surround the `http_write` caller by `(UN)LOCK_TCPIP_CORE` ? Yes, that's enough. Regards, Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org

Re: [lwip-users] Expected behavior of linkoutput()?

Am 12. Januar 2022 18:45:44 MEZ schrieb Grant Edwards : >On 2022-01-12, Sylvain Rochet wrote: > >> Actually, it should do both. Place the packet in the TX queue and return >> immediately, BUT if the queue is full it should wait for a free slot. > >So, when using an OS, I can assume that lwIP

Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?

Yeah, the documentation... I just haven't got around to uploading the updated 2.1.3 documentation. However, it is included in the release zip in the download section. Regards, Simon Am 17. November 2021 16:09:04 MEZ schrieb Grant Edwards : >On 2021-11-17, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote: > >> I just

Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?

On 16.11.2021 19:44, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2021-11-16, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: On 16.11.2021 18:47, Grant Edwards wrote: I've been reading up on netconn/sockets and thread-safety. At https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_1_x/group__lwip__opts__netconn.html it says this about the "fulld

Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?

On 16.11.2021 18:47, Grant Edwards wrote: I've been reading up on netconn/sockets and thread-safety. At https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_1_x/group__lwip__opts__netconn.html it says this about the "fullduplex" option: "ATTENTION: This is currently really alpha!" Is that accurate? No,

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP manuals available anywhere?

Well, fandom is the wiki someone started ages ago. That page doesn't really have anything to do with us as a project. Rather, it has been a user initiative. I haven't really followed the wiki, so I can't tell what's in there or even if it is correct. As with many open source projects,

Re: [lwip-users] Why does user code need to lock tcp core?

Am 17. Juni 2021 11:46:13 MESZ schrieb Bas Prins : >Hi all, > >I just found out that my lwipopts.h was lacking quite a lot, which >completely disabled the core locking assert. After fixing this, I did >run >into a few asserts. But all in places where I am not expecting them. > >Why do I need to

Re: [lwip-users] httpc_get_file doesn't seem to download entire file?

Am 16. Juni 2021 20:15:02 MESZ schrieb "Rémy DZIEMIASZKO" : >Le mer. 16 juin 2021 à 15:24, Bas Prins a écrit >: >> >> Hi Remy, >> >> Thanks for your answer. >> >> It feels a bit awkward this way though. Do you know any reason why >user code should be bothered with reloading the timeout ticks?

Re: [lwip-users] BRIDGEIF does not forward packets?

Am 23. April 2021 18:39:31 MESZ schrieb Tomas Mudrunka : >> bridgeif_initdata_t bridge_initdata = BRIDGEIF_INITDATA1(1, 1024, >> 16, ETH_ADDR(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)); >> if(netif_add(, , , , _initdata, >> bridgeif_init, NO_SYS ? netif_input : ethernet_input) == NULL) { >>

Re: [lwip-users] bind with link down

On 31.03.2020 21:34, Massimiliano Cialdi wrote: I have a process that polls the PHY to find out if the link is up or down. It calls netif_set_link_up()/netif_set_link_down(). I also have the link callback calling netif_set_up()/netif_set_down(). You're mixing link state with admin state

Re: [lwip-users] Core locked checking when using the SNMP netconn implementation

Dirk Ziegelmeier wrote: > Hm, you again found a bug. In this case I don't even have quick fix... > We (the company I work for) never used traps so they are basically untested. I don't think traps are untested. But the combination of traps and using SNMP via that netconn API might be untested. In

Re: [lwip-users] https server woes.

On 20.02.2020 18:20, Trampas Stern wrote: [..] I am fairly new to TCP/IP so hold my hand in interpreting the wire shark results. image.png Please send pcap files, not images, while ensuring the pcap files only contain things they need (so don't send a file that is too large). Thanks, Simon

Re: [lwip-users] https mbed TLS lwip

Trampas Stern wrote: > right now I have the following settings: > #define MEM_SIZE                 12 * 1024 > [..] > It appears that I am getting handshake failures...   During runtime mbedTLS allocates hughe amounts of memory. Depending on your configuration, this is routed to the lwIP heap (see

Re: [lwip-users] mbedtls

Trampas Stern wrote: > I found that chrome will not work with openssl keys generated by the comments > in the code I found I had to generate different keys using the following > commands.  > [..] Well, the code in the comment did work at some time. I don't think I can keep up with the speed

Re: [lwip-users] DNS thread-safe functions

matteo.c...@alice.it wrote: > - LOCK_TCPIP_CORE / UNLOCK_TCPIP_CORE. They allow to access in exclusive way > to TCIPIP mechanism. However, I don’t want interfere with the regular > mechanisms of TCIPIP thread and of operating system; You don't. Unless you explicitly set LWIP_TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING to

Re: [lwip-users] DNS thread-safe functions

Ajay Bhargav wrote: > [..] > However, I am not sure if dns_setserver really needs to be protected so much > as there is nothing much going on except copying of server in an array. Please *don't* suggest things like this. You *need* protection: a) there is no guarantee the code will stay like it

Re: [lwip-users] POST gets stuck after few requests.

vysocan wrote: > Re-posting the debug since raw text was removed... If you want more people to read this, please: don't write from nabble. Instead, send a good old text-only email to the list. And ensure it's a readable length. I'm not even sure what your problem is... Thanks, Simon

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP IPV6 UDP STM32f746

On 18.12.19 08:00, ajnlwip wrote: Is there anyone that is using ipv6 with LWIP and raw udp interface? If so, it would be nice if you can share some code. I am using stm32f746 Depending on which kind of problems you see, it might be better to ask a more generic question. I don't see why IPv6

Re: [lwip-users] fragmentation failure with stm32 if length > 1704

ranran wrote: > Hi, > > I've solved this issue after increasing size as was suggested here. Thanks ! > (The issue was also posted here: > https://community.st.com/s/question/0D50XBozSc5SQE/ethernet-fragmentation-issues) > > Yet, whenever lwip receives (from PC) big packet , above its limit, it

Re: [lwip-users] MEM_USE_POOLS issue

"mtimm" wrote: > It looks like it stucked inside memp_priv.h inside typedef > memp_pool_helper_t declaration. It is something wrong with the syntax. I am > not sure how memp_priv.h and memp_std.h work and it is hard for me to > eliminate this issue. > I would like to work with static allocation

Re: [lwip-users] https post_auto_wnd not work

"tomek wilkxt" wrote: > > > #define LWIP_HTTPD_POST_MANUAL_WND 1 > > > In normal http: > > > if *post_auto_wnd=1 its work ok, i can read large file. > > > if *post_auto_wnd=0, not work (I see TCP ZeroWindow flags). > > > > Well, these zero windows are expected, no? You'll have to update the > >

Re: [lwip-users] listen to multiple ports

steffen_storck wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > I'm sorry, but maybe case is a little exotic. No, it's not ;-) > > I need to listen to more than one port but only have one local interface. So > I tried to add more pcbs to the list of pcbs with this > > struct

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP MQTT+HTTPd with ssi

"JJ" wrote: > I’m using your MQTT client app with success. > But when I activate HTTPD in LWIP, the SSI codes are not parsed anymore if > MQTT client is active. > I mean: > 1.If I activate only HTTPD + SSi it works as expected. > 2.If I activate only MQTT it works as expected. > 3.If

Re: [lwip-users] tcp_poll

"vrnud" wrote: > Hello, > > How to call tcp_poll()? What are you trying to do? Have you read the docs? The callback registered via tcp_poll() is called by a timer in the lwIP stack... Regards, Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org

Re: [lwip-users] HTTP keep alive SSI

Hi Tomek, are you aware of email threads and that you just hijacked another thread? Never use the "reply" feature unless actually responding to a mail! "tomek wilkxt" wrote: > Hi > I read this form "httpd_opts.h" file : > " * A downside of the current SSI implementation is that persistent >

Re: [lwip-users] Running perl makefsdata

"Sel" wrote: > Do you know if I have to compile the C version or is there an .exe available? > > If compile required, is there a guide for it? > > (I tried to do so earlier, but, noticed that there were header files missing) To get a windows executable, you can use the VisualStudio project files

Re: [lwip-users] `MEMP_NUM_PPP_PCB' undeclared here (not in a function)

markus forrer wrote: > If I remove /*(PPP_SUPPORT*6*MEMP_NUM_PPP_PCB) +*/ it works. > Looks like something changed in the new version of lwip? Yes: the ppp configuration has been split out, as this is "merely" a netif to lwip. As a result, MEMP_NUM_PPP_PCB is not defined globally (it has been

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP SNMPv1 howto

On 23.06.19 17:27, Yigal Hochberg wrote: Hi Steven, DMH Software offers and SNMP-Agent solution for Lwip based platforms > It comes with a MIB-Compiler that generates all required code for your MIBs. All SNMP versions are supported: snmpv1, snmpv2c, and a full snmpv3 agent implementation.

Re: [lwip-users] why NA message is sent to upper layer by raw_input

"Grace" wrote: > I'm using lwip2.1.2 to implement ping ipv6 feature, > [..] > So why NA in IPv6 is passed to IP layer? In the IPv4, ARP has its own ethtype, so ARP packets are of course not sent to IP. In contrast, in IPv6 world, address resolution is implemented on top of IPv6 instead of having

Re: [lwip-users] Handling Socket Errors

On 01.05.19 21:47, Brandon Noel wrote: Hi, We are using lwIP’s (STABLE-2.1.2) non-blocking  BSD socket interface in an application. Our current setup is two threads which each have their own socket and are communicating with different peers. Currently if lwip_send() returns -1 we call

Re: [lwip-users] ERR_ABRT: Out of pcbs or netconns

On 18.04.19 11:06, tirmalabenikasibeni wrote: goldsi...@gmx.de wrote Which code? In the initial code , or revised one: There's no code here. I guess the problem is that you're using nabble while this is a

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP altcp_mbedtls webserver performance issue

Amr Elsayed wrote: > Thank you for the response, Can you share with me the chip name for the RSA ? No, sorry, I'm not involved in the details there. But as Tomek wrote, the ATECC508A (or also the ATECC608A) should do a good job for ECDH. > I have implemented  the cryptography hardware

Re: [lwip-users] LWIP altcp_mbedtls webserver performance issue

Amr Elsayed wrote: > Hi Guys, >  > I am using the LWIP altcp_mbedtls and httpd for implementing a webserver > on STM32F437 which has a Cryptography processor ,Hash processor, and > random generator [..] mbedTLS does not use the hardware functions of this chip by default, you need to add that by

Re: [lwip-users] using lwip with static memory

On 04.04.19 07:18, Ranran wrote: Hello, Is it possible to use lwip with static memory ? We need to use lwip with safertos (safertos does not support heap). Is it done by enabling MEM_USE_POOLS=1 Exactly. You then have to define the pools for mem_malloc to use. You also need to enable

Re: [lwip-users] tcp_active_pcbs corrupt after resetting connection ???

On 27.03.19 22:00, Terence Darwen wrote: Hi Simon - Thanks for the reply.  I've made my own replies below: > Hi, I'm using lwIP 1.41 with a Texas Instruments Tiva Launchpad development > board (the TM4C1294). >>Now that's a really old version of lwIP! Yes, unfortunately 1.41 is the

Re: [lwip-users] TCP state machine problem? LWIP 1.4.1

On 08.03.2019 15:47, Sergio R. Caprile wrote: mmm... the ACK number..., I think I've seen this one or two years ago, search the list and or the patches for "one less" or something like that. I'm not fresh on this, but I think that is the problem, the ACK to the RST has the wrong number and

Re: [lwip-users] lwIP trouble

On 26.02.2019 22:07, Slava Zilberfayn wrote: Hello all, I've done some more testing with tcpecho example. When I set chunk size to be less than the size of the tcpecho packets, I get exactly the same failure during the second call to netconn_write. When the packet size small than

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

On 26.02.2019 17:15, Giuseppe Modugno wrote: Il 26/02/2019 09:58, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto: Giuseppe Modugno wrote: [snip] No. TCP_WND is not something you have allocated. It's the amount of data the remote host can send before we reopen the window. In the altcp TLS case, the data

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

Giuseppe Modugno wrote: > An: lwip-users@nongnu.org > Betreff: Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls > > Il 25/02/2019 20:19, goldsi...@gmx.de ha scritto: > > Am 22.02.2019 um 10:24 schrieb Giuseppe Modugno: > >> Il 22/02/2019 09:43, Simon Goldschmid

Re: [lwip-users] Again confused about tcp_recved() and pbuf_free()

Giuseppe Modugno wrote: [..] > >> What are the situations when it should be better to not call > >> tcp_recved() in recv() callback()? Here the application has the > >> received data, can process and free the pbufs or can avoid freeing > >> the pbufs to wait for additional data. In both cases I

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

Giuseppe Modugno wrote: > I'm trying to integrate lwip and mbedTLS on a project running on LPC1769 > MCU from NXP. This MCU features 64kB SRAM in two separate banks of 32kB. If it works at all, it will certainly get *very* hard. Aside from the input buffer, we saw really many small allocations

[lwip-users] 2.1.x bugfix branch updated

Hi all, the 2.1.x branch [1] just got about 20 or so bugfix cherry-picks. This means I'd like to release 2.1.3 shortly. Please test :-) [1] http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/log/?h=STABLE-2_1_x Regards, Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list

Re: [lwip-users] DNS lookup table or dynamic local hostlist?

On 16.02.2019 20:58, Roman Lwip wrote: Hi, I am using lwip as part of the espressif/arduino-esp32 library and there is something I don't understand. My question is about DNS implementation of lwip: https://github.com/espressif/arduino-esp32/blob/master/tools/sdk/include/lwip/lwip/dns.h If

Re: [lwip-users] dhcp_release_and_stop() clears the assigned IP address

R. Diez wrote: > Last time I looked, I could not find a proper network discovery protocol like > zeroconf or Bonjour in lwIP. Is there anything new in this respect? Zeroconf and Bonjour are marketing words from Apple, aren't they? We try to implement standards. We provide AutoIP and mDNS, what

Re: [lwip-users] How receive UDP broadcast with LwIP ?

Pekub wrote: > [..] > err = udp_bind(upcb, IP_ADDR_BROADCAST, 8000); Maybe you should bind to the ANY addr, not to BROADCAST. Regards, Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org

Re: [lwip-users] Webserver based on lwip 1.4.1

"Keppler, Uwe" wrote: > Does really nobody have an idea or found a similar issue? Please don't top-post. Your problem looks like a threading issue. Did you read and understand http://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_1_x/pitfalls.html ? And why are you using 1.4.1, which is really old? Furthermore, I

Re: [lwip-users] Problems with a HTTP server - DHCP - etharp.c - v2.1.2

stevestrong wrote: > Just as final comment to close this issue: > > In the new Version (2.x) the DHCP should not be stopped by the application > (*do not call dhcp_stop()*), as the STM32 application does for v1.4, when an > IP address has been assigned. That has nothing to do with the new

Re: [lwip-users] Netconn write and non-blocking

kncy9876 wrote: > I am having this exact issue did you ever find the resolution Which issue? Some context please. Not everyone is using nabble. Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org

Re: [lwip-users] UDP and Raw API, lwip running with RTOS

zulu4711 wrote: > Simon, > Sorry for that ! > My "everyday" reading of lwip topics is done on nabble, hence I did the > question there. There's no problem in using nabble, you just have to make sure the result is readable by everyone reading the list, not only by nabble users. If you want a

Re: [lwip-users] UDP and Raw API, lwip running with RTOS

zulu4711 wrote: > Simon, > I access it here: > http://lwip.100.n7.nabble.com/UDP-and-Raw-API-lwip-running-with-RTOS-td33221.html Ok, so you're using nabble. That's fine for you. I'm using this list. By now, you may have noticed the difference ;-) In other words, the formatting of your mail is

Re: [lwip-users] UDP and Raw API, lwip running with RTOS

zulu4711 wrote: > I edited my post on the forum afterwards (as I also discovered that it was > unreadable). Which forum are you talking about? This is a mailing list and you cannot edit mails after you have sent them. > Anyway, I have included it here also, hope it works ? I'm not sure I

Re: [lwip-users] Pbuf Assert

Greenwood, Gregory A. wrote: > I have stopped the problem but I am not sure of the root cause. > It does not seem to have anything to do with LWIP itself.  I was > using a utility feature supplied by STM that prints debug messages > to the LCD screen on the evaluation board.  When I reduced the >

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP RAW - Simultaneous (full-duplex) communication

Nenad Pekez wrote: > I took a look at this. This has been provided by Xilinx drivers already. > In their MAC receive handler they allocate memory for pbuf (call to > pbuf_realloc() actually) and enqueue it. In the main loop, I call Xilinx > function xemacif_input() which check if there is

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP RAW - Simultaneous (full-duplex) communication

Nenad Pekez wrote: > > Have you checked the stats if you run out of memory somewhere? > I have checked them, and there is certainly something wrong. After some > time, stats for memory seem to overflow, at least that's my impression. > > At one point I have this: > MEM HEAP >     avail: 6

Re: [lwip-users] lwIP RAW - Low throughput during first few seconds

"Nenad Pekez" wrote: > [..] > This seems like drivers issue, doesn't it? Yes, it does. This is a Xilinx driver, right? Have you read this (also Xilinx): http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lwip-devel/2017-12/msg00070.html There seem to be cache issues in that driver, maybe you have a similar

Re: [lwip-users] PBUF_RAM allocation

"Amena El Homsi" wrote: > For PBUF_RAM type, LwIP mentions that "struct pbuf and its payload are > allocated in one piece of contiguous memory (so the first payload byte > can be calculated from struct pbuf)." >  > What If the pbuf structure is in place and the payload is in another > place

Re: [lwip-users] How to limit the UDP Rx packet size to avoid big RAM allocations

"R. Diez" wrote: > This time it worked. I guess you used an e-mail program instead of a web > mailer. I suggest that you always do that if you can. You guessed wrong. I manually added you CC. And thanks for the suggestion, but I think I can decide for myself which mail client I use ;-) > >

Re: [lwip-users] How to limit the UDP Rx packet size to avoid big RAM allocations

I've manually added your mail as CC, please still fix your subscription. "R. Diez" > > That's why we have IP_REASS_MAX_PBUFS. > > That does not really help, because it is a counter, and not a limit on > the number of allocated bytes. That distinction is important in my > resource-constrained

Re: [lwip-users] How to limit the UDP Rx packet size to avoid big RAM allocations

"R. Diez" wrote: > > I found it awkward to answer, because I did not get > > any e-mails from the mailing list on this subject. > > I had to manually check the mailing list archive to see your messages. > > Regarding my previous comment above, I wonder if you could change the > way you send

Re: [lwip-users] [lwip-devel] lwIP 2.1 cleanup - remove UNIX test apps

Dirk Ziegelmeier wrote: > Hello all, >  > in order to clean up for lwIP 2.1, I'd like to remove the UNIX port test > applications > > - lib > - minimal > - unixsim >  > The only remaining test/debug app would be the new "example_app" that shares > most of the code with the windows port. > We

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP with SSH

Elinux wrote: > >" lwIP does neither provide a shell nor the protocols required for ssh. > >I suggest taking a look at mbedtls and using sockets to use mbedtls on top > >of lwIP. " > > what do you mean by his? > If we implement the tls.mbed sockets over LwIP with sockets, does that mean > we

Re: [lwip-users] LwIP with SSH

Elinux wrote: > Knowing that I work with a *STM32* Cortex-M microcontroller by programming > with Workbenche (Eclipse) under wndows, I would like to know if we could > implement and add the *SSH* protocol to the *LwIP stack* ? lwIP does neither provide a shell nor the protocols required for ssh.

Re: [lwip-users] Re-Transmission from PC is ignored due to sequence number

Daniel L wrote: > [..] > However, the overall behaviour still looks weird. > Wireshark now reports "Spurious Retransmissions" because lwip retransmittes > a frame which was correctly acknowledged by PC. That could well be because you changed TCP_TMR_INTERVAL. Don't do that! > Attached file shows

Re: [lwip-users] BSD 4-clause in some of lwIPs files

Wolf Heidrich wrote: > we noticed that there are some source files that have a BSD 4-clause licence > in them, e.g., in src\include\netif\ppp_oe.h it says after the BSD 3-clause > header:  > /* based on NetBSD: if_pppoe.c,v 1.64 2006/01/31 23:50:15 martin Exp */ > > > > Question: Do we have

Re: [lwip-users] Re-Transmission from PC is ignored due to sequence number

Patrick Klos wrote: > > [..] > > Is lwip acting correct? > > Based on your description, yes, LwIP is acting properly.  You need to > find out why the payload packet isn't making it to the PC?  How big is > the payload packet?  Can you share a file with the packets from Wireshark? > > > Are

Re: [lwip-users] Help debugging IPv6 SLAAC

thomasfogh wrote: > LWIP_IPV6_MLD is enabled and I got a bit further be setting the > NETIF_FLAG_MLD flag. > How do I join the allnodes group? Try setting LWIP_IPV6_MLD to 0. I was remembering incorrectly, it was the solicited node group, not the allnodes group. This should be

Re: [lwip-users] Thread safety of socket API

Sam Kearney wrote: > I have a question about the thread-safety of the socket API, specifically with > regard to recvfrom() and close(). I am using lwIP 2.0.2, ported for FreeRTOS > and ARM Cortex M4. What you're trying to do does not (yet) work. First, you need to enable LWIP_NETCONN_FULLDUPLEX

Re: [lwip-users] help with mDNS sending a DNS_RRTYPE_SRV query

antonio wrote: > The problem is the function that requires recursion (*mdns_readname*). The > error is related to */Stack Overflow/.. * So this is not related to threads? Then please describe the actual problem you see. I'm getting lost in all the other things you write... Simon

Re: [lwip-users] Slow HTTP put request

joc...@strohbeck.net wrote: > [..] > Regarding the expect/continue overhead, according to wireshark trace > below it is about 30ms extra - way to much for what I intended to use > PUT (write a couple of bytes to twi interface). Speaking of that, why do you use PUT anyway? I would have used POST

Re: [lwip-users] Slow HTTP put request

joc...@strohbeck.net wrote: > I see the following solution: > - server sends reply to expect/continue and then... well, frankly don't > know exactly what happens then and how much overhead this means > [..] I see 2 solutions: implement a HTTP 1.1 server that keeps to the specification (I'll have

Re: [lwip-users] MEM_SIZE

Giuseppe Modugno wrote: > [..] > I think with the following options: > > #define MEM_LIBC_MALLOC  0 > #define MEM_USE_POOLS  1 > #define MEM_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS 1  /* Needed by MEM_USE_POOLS */ It's MEMP_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS, not MEM_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS. And it compiles for me, see the win32 port for

Re: [lwip-users] MEM_SIZE

Giuseppe Modugno wrote: > [..] > In my case, I have a completely free (not used by the linker) 32kB RAM > region starting from 0x2007C000. To instruct lwip to use that region for > heap, I think I have to define: > > #define MEM_SIZE  (32 * 1024 - 1 * SIZEOF_STRUCT_MEM) > #define

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >