netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: fix wraparound issue in tcp

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2017 16:56:43 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: fix wraparound issue in tcp_lp

On Mon, 01 May 2017 15:29:48 -0700
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> 
> Be careful when comparing tcp_time_stamp to some u32 quantity,
> otherwise result can be surprising.
> 
> Fixes: 7c106d7e782b ("[TCP]: TCP Low Priority congestion control")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/tcp_lp.c |    6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_lp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_lp.c
> index 046fd3910873306d74207615d6997e1c847ea361..d6fb6c067af4641f232b94e7c590c212648e8173 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_lp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_lp.c
> @@ -264,13 +264,15 @@ static void tcp_lp_pkts_acked(struct sock *sk, const struct ack_sample *sample)
>  {
>  	struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
>  	struct lp *lp = inet_csk_ca(sk);
> +	u32 delta;
>  
>  	if (sample->rtt_us > 0)
>  		tcp_lp_rtt_sample(sk, sample->rtt_us);
>  
>  	/* calc inference */
> -	if (tcp_time_stamp > tp->rx_opt.rcv_tsecr)
> -		lp->inference = 3 * (tcp_time_stamp - tp->rx_opt.rcv_tsecr);
> +	delta = tcp_time_stamp - tp->rx_opt.rcv_tsecr;
> +	if ((s32)delta > 0)
> +		lp->inference = 3 * delta;

Agreed time wraparound would cause problems.
But why not use existing time_after() macro here?