From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:10:03 +0200
> So maybe the following patch is necessary...
>
> I believe IPV6 & DCCP are immune to this problem.
>
> Thanks again Denys for spotting this.
>
> Eric
>
> [PATCH] TCP : secure_tcp_sequence_number() should not use a too fast clock
>
> TCP V4 sequence numbers are 32bits, and RFC 793 assumed a 250 KHz clock.
> In order to follow network speed increase, we can use a faster clock, but
> we should limit this clock so that the delay between two rollovers is
> greater than MSL (TCP Maximum Segment Lifetime : 2 minutes)
>
> Choosing a 64 nsec clock should be OK, since the rollovers occur every
> 274 seconds.
>
> Problem spotted by Denys Fedoryshchenko
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Thanks a lot Eric for bringing closure to this.
I'll apply this and add a reference in the commit message to the
changeset that introduced this problem, since it might help
others who look at this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
