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/
