netdev - Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

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: <20070105120157.GA21872@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:01:57 +1100
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>
To:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] tcp: fix ambiguity in the `before' relation

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:51:16AM +0000, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>      
> |  2) Change before/after such that before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x).
> This is what the new definition does: in the old definition we always have that
> before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x).

Sorry but the new definition has exactly the same problem since

	before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x) == 0

While the old definition had

	before(x, x+2^31) == before(x+2^31, x) == 1

Both are equally bad.  It's only unambiguous if

	before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x) == 0

or

	before(x, x+2^31) == !before(x+2^31, x) == 1

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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