[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT possible bug + documentation patch for tcp.7

> Ok, this surely is incorrect. However, sending spurious SYNACK packets
> doesn't seem like the way to solve this problem.

They are _not_ spurious. Connection did not enter ESTABLISHED state.
If it entered this state, we would have no rights to timeout.
It should be closed with FIN etc. etc.

In fact we do the only thing, which is possible without further
violation of protocol.

About uglyness. Violations of protocol are ugly. When all
the things proceed in a legal way undistingushable,
it is beautiful. 8)

> kernel, but if we do connection preprocessing, shouldn't we also do teardown
> in case of timeout?

In the case of timeout no special actions are required, that's point.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.067 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site