netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: force a fresh timestamp for ingress packets

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

Message-ID: <1292573297.2655.42.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:08:17 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] net: force a fresh timestamp for ingress
 packets

Le vendredi 17 décembre 2010 à 07:30 +0000, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :

> It is wrong because it brings back the inconsistency with ping etc.
> described by Alex Sidorenko in the changelog of netem patch, but
> use normal (not netem) ingress scheduling (ping results shouldn't
> depend on sniffers).

Care to explain why only netem should take care of this delaying
problem ?
If a packet is delayed on other qdisc, dont we have the same problem ?

Right now, ping lies, giving different results if a sniffer is active or
not.

Care to suggest an alternative patch, because I am lost at this point ?

Thanks


--
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