netdev - Re: [regression] TCP_MD5SIG on established sockets

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: <20200630.134429.1590957032456466647.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     edumazet@...gle.com
Cc:     mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        ycheng@...gle.com, joraj@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [regression] TCP_MD5SIG on established sockets

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700

> The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable.
> 
> A) case is more complex, I have no idea of breakages of various TCP
> stacks if a flow got SACK
> at some point (in 3WHS) but suddenly becomes Reno.

I agree that C and B are the easiest to implement without having to
add complicated code to handle various negotiated TCP option
scenerios.

It does seem to be that some entities do A, or did I misread your
behavioral analysis of various implementations Mathieu?

Thanks.