[PATCH] ipv4: mitigate an integer underflow when comparing tcp timestamps

[Zhang Le]

Behind a loadbalancer which does NAT, peer->tcp_ts could be much smaller than
req->ts_recent. In this case, theoretically the req should not be ignored.

But in fact, it could be ignored, if peer->tcp_ts is so small that the
difference between this two number is larger than 2 to the power of 31.

I understand that under this situation, timestamp does not make sense any more,
because it actually comes from difference machines. However, if anyone
ever need to do the same investigation which I have done, this will
save some time for him.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Le <r0bertz@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
index 8f8527d..1eb4974 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
@@ -1352,8 +1352,8 @@ int tcp_v4_conn_request(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 		    peer->v4daddr == saddr) {
 			inet_peer_refcheck(peer);
 			if ((u32)get_seconds() - peer->tcp_ts_stamp < TCP_PAWS_MSL &&
-			    (s32)(peer->tcp_ts - req->ts_recent) >
-							TCP_PAWS_WINDOW) {
+			    ((s32)(peer->tcp_ts - req->ts_recent) > TCP_PAWS_WINDOW &&
+			     peer->tcp_ts > req->ts_recent)) {
 				NET_INC_STATS_BH(sock_net(sk), LINUX_MIB_PAWSPASSIVEREJECTED);
 				goto drop_and_release;
 			}
-- 
1.7.3.2

--
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/