Thread (3 messages) flat view 3 messages, 2 authors, 2018-06-27

Re: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw, nes: don't use wall time for TCP sequence numbers

From: Shiraz Saleem <hidden>
Date: 2018-06-23 00:01:49
Also in: linux-rdma, lkml

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 08:44:17AM -0600, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The nes infiniband driver uses current_kernel_time() to get a nanosecond
granunarity timestamp to initialize its tcp sequence counters. This is
one of only a few remaining users of that deprecated function, so we
should try to get rid of it.

Aside from using a deprecated API, there are several problems I see here:

- Using a CLOCK_REALTIME based time source makes it predictable in
  case the time base is synchronized.
- Using a coarse timestamp means it only gets updated once per jiffie,
  making it even more predictable in order to avoid having to access
  the hardware clock source
- The upper 2 bits are always zero because the nanoseconds are at most
  999999999.

For the Linux TCP implementation, we use secure_tcp_seq(), which appears
to be appropriate here as well, and solves all the above problems.

I'm doing the same change in both versions of the nes driver, with
i40iw being a later copy of the same code.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Thanks Arnd for the patch!

[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -2164,7 +2165,6 @@ static struct i40iw_cm_node *i40iw_make_cm_node(
 				   struct i40iw_cm_listener *listener)
 {
 	struct i40iw_cm_node *cm_node;
-	struct timespec ts;
 	int oldarpindex;
 	int arpindex;
 	struct net_device *netdev = iwdev->netdev;
@@ -2214,8 +2214,10 @@ static struct i40iw_cm_node *i40iw_make_cm_node(
 	cm_node->tcp_cntxt.rcv_wscale = I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALE;
 	cm_node->tcp_cntxt.rcv_wnd =
 			I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALED >> I40IW_CM_DEFAULT_RCV_WND_SCALE;
-	ts = current_kernel_time();
-	cm_node->tcp_cntxt.loc_seq_num = ts.tv_nsec;
+	cm_node->tcp_cntxt.loc_seq_num = secure_tcp_seq(htonl(cm_node->loc_addr[0]),
+							htonl(cm_node->rem_addr[0]),
+							htons(cm_node->loc_port),
+							htons(cm_node->rem_port));
Should we not be using secure_tcpv6_seq() when we are ipv6?

Shiraz
 	cm_node->tcp_cntxt.mss = (cm_node->ipv4) ? (iwdev->vsi.mtu - I40IW_MTU_TO_MSS_IPV4) :
 				 (iwdev->vsi.mtu - I40IW_MTU_TO_MSS_IPV6);
 
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help