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

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:40:45AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > 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

Well, mainheader is important enough that it might always be good to
have a checksum on the first N bytes of it..

> OTOH ill immedeatly agree to a smaller threshold, 16kb or so maybe?

Yeah, or even smaller. The majority of file contents will be frames,
not packets, anyway so IMO overhead doesn't really matter here. What
if all packets (regardless of size) have such a checksum, but it only
covers the 'critical' fields (i.e. forward_ptr, etc.)? The only
possible problem I see is that syncpoints would be a special case or
have nasty overhead.. Maybe it's a bad idea tho.

Rich