netdev - Re: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw, nes: don't use wall time for TCP sequence numbers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:24:08 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>
Cc:     "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "y2038@...ts.linaro.org" <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Orosco, Henry" <henry.orosco@...el.com>,
        "Nikolova, Tatyana E" <tatyana.e.nikolova@...el.com>,
        "Ismail, Mustafa" <mustafa.ismail@...el.com>,
        Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>,
        Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw, nes: don't use wall time for TCP
 sequence numbers

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@...el.com> wrote:

>> @@ -2164,7 +2165,6 @@ static struct i40iw_cm_node *i40iw_make_cm_node(
>>                                  struct i40iw_cm_listener *listener)
>>  {
>>       struct i40iw_cm_node *cm_node;
>> -     struct timespec ts;
>>       int oldarpindex;
>>       int arpindex;
>>       struct net_device *netdev = iwdev->netdev;
>> @@ -2214,8 +2214,10 @@ static struct i40iw_cm_node *i40iw_make_cm_node(
>>       cm_node->tcp_cntxt.rcv_wscale = I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALE;
>>       cm_node->tcp_cntxt.rcv_wnd =
>>                       I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALED >> I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALE;
>> -     ts = current_kernel_time();
>> -     cm_node->tcp_cntxt.loc_seq_num = ts.tv_nsec;
>> +     cm_node->tcp_cntxt.loc_seq_num = secure_tcp_seq(htonl(cm_node->loc_addr[0]),
>> +                                                     htonl(cm_node->rem_addr[0]),
>> +                                                     htons(cm_node->loc_port),
>> +                                                     htons(cm_node->rem_port));
>
> Should we not be using secure_tcpv6_seq() when we are ipv6?

I had not realized that there is a difference, but yes, from looking
at that function it seems that we should. v2 coming now.

       Arnd