On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 16:36 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Yes, but we kill the socket. > > I should have added > > 0.400 `ss -nito state time-wait` > > as last line... > > Before patch: no output > after patch: tw socket shown. > > The on-wire behavior doesn't change unless further packets arrive. > Old behaviour: more RST > New behaviour: acks+tw timer restart
Just add few more incoming packets to the packetdrill test then ? Also, is your customer really _not_ using TCP timestamps ? This is kind of a requirement for port reuse anyway. Anyway, having a TIMEWAIT setup after sending a RST makes little sense to me. When a RST packet is sent, the remote peer will forget everything about this previous connection, and another connect() might reuse the tuple and I do not think we should forbid this. Normal PAWS checks were invented for a good reason. RFC 1122, 4.2.2.13 can be interpreted in very different ways. Please show us real issue your customer has. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
