Hi On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
$subj, and what about a change like:
--- mpcf.txt 2006-03-08 13:36:02.000000000 +0100 +++ mncf.txt 2006-03-05 14:49:57.000000000 +0100 @@ -312,6 +306,8 @@ packet_header startcode f(64) forward_ptr v + if(forward_ptr>64k) + header_checksum u(32)
packet_footer reserved_bytes @@ -591,6 +576,9 @@ for frame headers the checksum contains the framecode byte and all following bytes upto the checksum itself
+header_checksum + checksum over the startcode and forward pointer +
I'm a little bit confused. Is this a second checksum, or replacing the old checksum at the end of the header?
second, yeah it doesnt help if you find a packet with 1gb size and a missmatching checksum due to the whole packet and forward_ptr being random junk
Also, can we have a field in the header instead of arbitrary 64k? I'm fine with a requirement that it MUST be <= 64k. Some users may want more intense checksum.. Also some muxers with very small output buffer may want to use a smaller checksum block..
iam somewhat against this, at least for the main header its not possible so it would mean 2 different rules depending on header type OTOH ill immedeatly agree to a smaller threshold, 16kb or so maybe? [...] -- Michael