[NUT-devel] huge vs. damaged forward_ptrs in packets

[Rich Felker]

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?

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..

Rich