| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:56:26 -0600 From: Sebastian Kuzminsky <seb@...hlab.com> To: Philip Craig <philipc@...pgear.com> cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Sebastian Kuzminsky <seb@...hlab.com> Subject: Re: bug in tcp? Philip Craig <philipc@...pgear.com> wrote: > Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote: > > Weird. Why does sending a message from the client make it go again? > > The rule that allows packets with an "ESTABLISHED" state only matches > packets for which the connection is in netfilter's conntrack table. > The connection is removed from the table after the 5 days of idle. > It is only added again if netfilter accepts a packet for that connection. > So the packet from the client will cause it to be added. Why did the packet from the client cause the connection to be added back to the conntrack table, but the packet from the server did not? > > How do people normally handle this? > > Change the timeout or use keepalives. I can't think of any other way. > The 5 days is a compromise between keeping valid connections and > timing out dead connections. There will always be connections for > which it times out too fast or too slow. I don't think there are > any drawbacks to increasing the timeout if you aren't a router, > but as long as there is a timeout, you need keepalives to be sure. Thanks! I'll add keepalives and rerun the tests, and I expect the problem to go away. -- Sebastian Kuzminsky - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists