linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21 -> 2.6.22 & 2.6.23-rc8 performance regression

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]

Message-ID: <4701541B.70108@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:10:03 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Denys <nuclearcat@...learcat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21 -> 2.6.22 & 2.6.23-rc8 performance regression

So maybe the following patch is necessary...

I believe IPV6 & DCCP are immune to this problem.

Thanks again Denys for spotting this.

Eric

[PATCH] TCP : secure_tcp_sequence_number() should not use a too fast clock

TCP V4 sequence numbers are 32bits, and RFC 793 assumed a 250 KHz clock.
In order to follow network speed increase, we can use a faster clock, but
we should limit this clock so that the delay between two rollovers is
greater than MSL (TCP Maximum Segment Lifetime : 2 minutes)

Choosing a 64 nsec clock should be OK, since the rollovers occur every
274 seconds.

Problem spotted by Denys Fedoryshchenko

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>

View attachment "seq.patch" of type "text/plain" (990 bytes)