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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:29:42 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com> Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org> Subject: Re: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 01:08 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > While I agree generally, it's a bit unfortunate that we can't (as a > quality of implementation thing) give an earlier notice of failure since > the kernel knows about both ends of the connection even though the IP > address is gone. On the other hand, I imagine that would mean > special-casing things and presumably that would open a whole can of worms. Really what is the difference between a cable cut and what you are doing ? Some frames are lost (Dropped), and sender doesnt 'know' that is definitive or temporary failure. If you want faster response, you need to send RST messages, not dropping frames. So change your strategy, and add an iptables rule for example ? -- 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