search for: jaclaz

Hi, Ady wrote: > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > issue and deserves credit for it: > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0...

Hi, i think i found a suspect in lzo/prepcore.c and it would indeed be a wrong range of checksumming (speculative congratulations to Ady). Looking at http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/blob/0d82b71304d596d80f3c4520f9dcf90048ca50b7:/lzo/prepcore.c it seems that this change in line 374 could yield correct checksums: unsigned int ptr; - for (ptr = 64; ptr < offset; ptr += 4) +

> Ady wrote: > > This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this > > issue and deserves credit for it: > > Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that > > the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the > > checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. st...

...to Ady). Thank you Thomas for your replies and for looking into this issue. My part on the initial investigation that triggered this email thread is relatively small. Others deserve much more credit. I was/am providing not just my own report, but their's too. This is a quote from Wonko/Jaclaz, who has also been investigation this issue and deserves credit for it: [quote] Ok, not that I understand the code, but what *somehow* happens is that the "embedded" checksum in Isolinux.bin (starting from 4.00) is the checksum of the WHOLE file (i.e. starting from offset 0 instead o...