Telnetd giving bad TCP Checksums, Telnet sessions lock up

I’ve got a QNX installation on a PC that I can’t Telnet to
reliably.

Is this a known problem?

Summary

QNX 6.0.1
The QNX-running PC IS running inetd.
Telnet to QNX from any other PC or Linux.
If a log of output is generated (“ps -lf” of large directory,
“sin”, “cat bigfile”), the Telnet session “locks up”.
An W&G Ethernet Monitor shows that QNX is sending TCP
packets with *** bad TCP checksums ***.

Details

It is a little more complex than the above.

I first installed QNX 6.0.1 into a 2G FAT32 partition which
is the “D:” drive on the Windows 2000 system (with NTFS on
the C: drive). This worked fine, but had some Beta packages
on it that wouldn’t de-install properly, so I decided to
reinstall QNX to put the the Release packages on.

Rather than wipe a working syste, I renamed
“d:/Program Files/qnx/” to “d:/Program Files/qnx_old/”
and performed a second QNX installation, meaning to install
the release packages. Reading up on “diskboot” indicates
this is a valid way to have two QNX systems on a partition.

The install goes fine, but the above problem (Telnet
generating TCP packets with bad checksums) happens.

Remove and Reinstall. I’ve done this 5 times now, from
different CDs and with slightly different install options.
Installations on other PCs works OK, but this one has
the best video card.

Telnet and Rlogin give this problem. FTP, the TCP Echo
Socket and Chargen will happily transfer gigabytes of data.
Telnet and Rlogin send bad packets after about 1500 bytes.
or, it seems, after the program generating the data gets
“flow controlled” by the lower layers in the networking
stack. Telnetting to 127.0.0.1 won’t fail.

Tom Evans
InitialSurnameAt
tennyson.com.au

What’s 6.0.1? I recall seeing this on some of our 6.1 machines – went
away with Patch A. I don’t recall seeing it on 6.0 patch A, B, or C.

Regards,

Bill Tracey.

Tom Evans <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in <3BF08FDD.14D6@nospam.invalid>:

I’ve got a QNX installation on a PC that I can’t Telnet to
reliably.

Is this a known problem?

Summary

Bill Tracey wrote:

What’s 6.0.1? I recall seeing this on some of our 6.1
machines – went away with Patch A. I don’t recall seeing
it on 6.0 patch A, B, or C.

I’m numerically-dyslectic today. It is 6.1.0 that is giving
problems.

Thanks for the hint with Patch A. Installing that, and…

It has fixed it! What a great response. This is like the
Internet in 1988 all over again :slight_smile:.

Tom Evans
InitialSurnameAt
tennyson.com.au