| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:57:10 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: dada1@...mosbay.com Cc: nuclearcat@...learcat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21 -> 2.6.22 & 2.6.23-rc8 performance regression From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:10:03 +0200 > 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> Thanks a lot Eric for bringing closure to this. I'll apply this and add a reference in the commit message to the changeset that introduced this problem, since it might help others who look at this. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists