On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Shiraz Saleem <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @@ -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?
I had not realized that there is a difference, but yes, from looking
at that function it seems that we should. v2 coming now.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
