netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: Fix integer-overflows in TCP vegas

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:18:02 +0200
From:	'Christoph Paasch' <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Doug Leith <doug.leith@...m.ie>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: Fix integer-overflows in TCP vegas

On 23/07/14 - 08:38:30, David Laight wrote:
> From: Of Christoph Paasch
> > In vegas we do a multiplication of the cwnd and the rtt. This
> > may overflow and thus their result is stored in a u64. However, we first
> > need to cast the cwnd so that actually 64-bit arithmetic is done.
> > 
> > Cc: Doug Leith <doug.leith@...m.ie>
> > Fixes: 8d3a564da34e (tcp: tcp_vegas cong avoid fix)
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c
> > index 9a5e05f27f4f..6a4bdea2a0fb 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_vegas.c
> > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ static void tcp_vegas_cong_avoid(struct sock *sk, u32 ack, u32 acked)
> >  			 * This is:
> >  			 *     (actual rate in segments) * baseRTT
> >  			 */
> > -			target_cwnd = tp->snd_cwnd * vegas->baseRTT / rtt;
> > +			target_cwnd = (u64)tp->snd_cwnd * vegas->baseRTT / rtt;
> 
> Won't that add a reference to the 64bit divide function?

Yes, you are right. Sorry... (that's what happens if one only tests on a
64-bit system... :S )

> If snd_cwnd is small then maybe:
> 	target_cwnd = (256u * vegas->baseRTT) / rtt * tp->snd_cwnd / 256u;
> If large I think low bits are always zero so:
> 	target_cwnd = (256u * vegas->baseRTT) / rtt * (tp->snd_cwnd / 256u);
> Possibly with a different power of 2...

I realize that baseRTT is always smaller or equal to rtt.

Thus, target_cwnd will always be <= snd_cwnd. So, I think target_cwnd does not
need to be a u64.


I think that it would be safer to do do_div(). That way no matter what the
difference between baseRTT and rtt, we always set the correct value. Otherwise
we might set target_cwnd to 0, while with a do_div it would not.

But a do_div might be more costly than your solution.


What do you (or others) think?


Cheers,
Christoph

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html