netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] xfrm: Make xfrm

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: <20130813105916.GC26773@secunet.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:59:16 +0200
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] xfrm: Make xfrm_state timer monotonic

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 04:37:04PM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2013年08月13日 15:55, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:40:07PM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 2013年08月06日 17:22, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 02:57:05PM +0800, Fan Du wrote:
> >>>>xfrm_state timer should be independent of system clock change,
> >>>>so switch to monotonic clock base.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I think a monotonic timer will reintroduce a bug on suspend/resume
> >>>that was fixed by commit 9e0d57fd6
> >>>(xfrm: SAD entries do not expire correctly after suspend-resume)
> >>>
> >>>Please make sure that this does not happen.
> >>
> >>What about using CLOCK_BOOTTIME? it's monotonic, but includes suspend time as well.
> >
> >As I said, I'm open to everything that fixes your problem and does not
> >introduce a regression. I'll consider applying after some testing
> >if noone else has objections.
> 
> Hi, Steffen
> 
> Thanks for your understanding! :)
> 
> I happened to bump into CLOCK_BOOTTIME several days ago, so apologize for
> eating my words earlier. Changing xfrm_state timer to monotonic does not
> solve the problem I've described earlier in:
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg245019.html (*1*)
> 
> So is there any light of hope for the proposal in (*1*) by using CLOCK_BOOTTIME
> instead?
> 

Well, you have to convince David in the first place, as he is sitting
upstream from me ;)

Also, I think he is right with his complaint. Why not following the
clock_was_set approach you started with?

--
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