On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 21:35, David Miller wrote: > From: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> > Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:47:21 +0900 > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > > <han...@stressinduktion.org> wrote: > >> I bet there will soon be a timewaitd which handles the not configurable > >> (David has rejected all those patches so far) timeout of TIME_WAIT > >> sockets. And I bet it will be used. :/ > > > > No, SOCK_DESTROY has no effect on TCP_TIME_WAIT sockets or any other > > non-full socket. > > > > When called on any socket where sk_fullsock(sk) is false, it returns > > EOPNOTSUPP because there is nothing to do. Its purpose is to interrupt > > blocked userspace socket calls, not to release resources. > > +1
Basically my concern is the same one I tried to express in the other patch about Florian's patch "[PATCH -next] net: tcp: move to timewait when receiving data post active-close": we could give the socket back way too early so the quadruple can be reused. If timestamps are not in use or we are dealing with NAT were we have dozens of synchronized clocks behind the masquerading device, we could end up in accepting delayed data. Especially this scenario can come up when the address is actually not released but someone uses this feature on a server. Bye, Hannes -- 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
