Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:16:04 +0200 | From | bert hubert <> | Subject | Re: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT possible bug + documentation patch for tcp.7 |
| |
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 04:56:41PM +0400, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > Hello! > > > Connection established, and I send no data > > But why did you set DEFER_ACCEPT then? 8)
I was just experimenting.
> It becomes legal, as soon as we do not enter ESTABLISHED > state. Your ACK is just ignored and we continue to retransmit > SYN-ACK being in SYN-RECV.
With my patch applied:
43.392834 l.1311 > l.2500: S 3232293621:3232293621(0) win 32280 <mss 16152,sackOK,timestamp 336478 0,nop,wscale 0> (DF) [tos 0x10] 43.392948 l.2500 > l.1311: S 3229276625:3229276625(0) ack 3232293622 win 32280 <mss 16152,sackOK,timestamp 336478 336478,nop,wscale 0> (DF) 43.393018 l.1311 > l.2500: . ack 1 win 32280 <nop,nop,timestamp 336478 336478> (DF) [tos 0x10]
(time passes, and I send some data)
51.370011 l.1311 > l.2500: P 1:3(2) ack 1 win 32280 <nop,nop,timestamp 373276 336478> (DF) [tos 0x10] 51.370102 l.2500 > l.1311: R 3229276626:3229276626(0) win 0 (DF) [tos 0x10]
Ok, this surely is incorrect. However, sending spurious SYNACK packets doesn't seem like the way to solve this problem. I know it complicates the kernel, but if we do connection preprocessing, shouldn't we also do teardown in case of timeout?
Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,
bert hubert
-- PowerDNS Versatile DNS Services Trilab The Technology People 'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |