[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
[ This bug was introduced by f859581519
]
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
32740ddc10
commit
9b42c336d0
|
@ -1550,11 +1550,13 @@ __u32 secure_tcp_sequence_number(__be32 saddr, __be32 daddr,
|
||||||
* As close as possible to RFC 793, which
|
* As close as possible to RFC 793, which
|
||||||
* suggests using a 250 kHz clock.
|
* suggests using a 250 kHz clock.
|
||||||
* Further reading shows this assumes 2 Mb/s networks.
|
* Further reading shows this assumes 2 Mb/s networks.
|
||||||
* For 10 Gb/s Ethernet, a 1 GHz clock is appropriate.
|
* For 10 Mb/s Ethernet, a 1 MHz clock is appropriate.
|
||||||
* That's funny, Linux has one built in! Use it!
|
* For 10 Gb/s Ethernet, a 1 GHz clock should be ok, but
|
||||||
* (Networks are faster now - should this be increased?)
|
* we also need to limit the resolution so that the u32 seq
|
||||||
|
* overlaps less than one time per MSL (2 minutes).
|
||||||
|
* Choosing a clock of 64 ns period is OK. (period of 274 s)
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
seq += ktime_get_real().tv64;
|
seq += ktime_get_real().tv64 >> 6;
|
||||||
#if 0
|
#if 0
|
||||||
printk("init_seq(%lx, %lx, %d, %d) = %d\n",
|
printk("init_seq(%lx, %lx, %d, %d) = %d\n",
|
||||||
saddr, daddr, sport, dport, seq);
|
saddr, daddr, sport, dport, seq);
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue