Merge release-20210412.0-36-g2c8379d95 (automated)

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 22 deletions

diff --git a/pkg/tcpip/network/ipv4/ipv4.go b/pkg/tcpip/network/ipv4/ipv4.go
index 9a3dc78cb..a82a5790d 100644
--- a/pkg/tcpip/network/ipv4/ipv4.go
+++ b/pkg/tcpip/network/ipv4/ipv4.go
@@ -1178,28 +1178,7 @@ func (p *protocol) parseAndValidate(pkt *stack.PacketBuffer) (header.IPv4, bool)
 		return nil, false
 	}
 
-	// There has been some confusion regarding verifying checksums. We need
-	// just look for negative 0 (0xffff) as the checksum, as it's not possible to
-	// get positive 0 (0) for the checksum. Some bad implementations could get it
-	// when doing entry replacement in the early days of the Internet,
-	// however the lore that one needs to check for both persists.
-	//
-	// RFC 1624 section 1 describes the source of this confusion as:
-	//     [the partial recalculation method described in RFC 1071] computes a
-	//     result for certain cases that differs from the one obtained from
-	//     scratch (one's complement of one's complement sum of the original
-	//     fields).
-	//
-	// However RFC 1624 section 5 clarifies that if using the verification method
-	// "recommended by RFC 1071, it does not matter if an intermediate system
-	// generated a -0 instead of +0".
-	//
-	// RFC1071 page 1 specifies the verification method as:
-	//	  (3)  To check a checksum, the 1's complement sum is computed over the
-	//        same set of octets, including the checksum field.  If the result
-	//        is all 1 bits (-0 in 1's complement arithmetic), the check
-	//        succeeds.
-	if h.CalculateChecksum() != 0xffff {
+	if !h.IsChecksumValid() {
 		return nil, false
 	}