Re: [PATCH] tcp: Use absolute system clock for TCP timestamps
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thu Sep 24 2015 - 10:49:14 EST
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Jovi Zhangwei <jovi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From f455dc3958593250909627474100f6cc5c158a5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marek Majkowski <marek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:05:07 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] tcp: Use absolute system clock for TCP timestamps
> Using TCP timestamps is beneficial due for to its purpose in PAWS and when
> its role when SYN cookies are enabled. In practice though TCP timestamps are
> often disabled due to being a perceived security issue - they leak Linux
> system uptime.
> This patch introduces a kernel option that makes TCP timestamp always return
> an absolute value derived from a system clock as opposed to jiffies from
> This patch is based on the approach taken by grsecurity:
Please do not send html messages, they wont reach lists.
May I ask how this patch was really tested ?
It cannot possibly work on current kernels, as TCP Timestamps are
generated from clock samples taken from skb_mstamp_get(),
and you did not change it.
static inline void skb_mstamp_get(struct skb_mstamp *cl)
u64 val = local_clock();
cl->stamp_us = (u32)val;
cl->stamp_jiffies = (u32)jiffies;
TCP stack uses tcp_time_stamp internally, we do not want to add
overhead adding an offset on all places.
tp->lsndtime is an example, but we have others.
Therefore, I suggest you add a new function and use it only where needed.
static inline u32 secure_tcp_time_stamp(void)
returns (u32)(tcp_time_stamp + rtc_timestamp_base);
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/