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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:09:23 -0400 From: John Heffner <jheffner@....edu> To: TJ <linux@...orld.net> CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Problem with implementation of TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT? TJ wrote: > Right now Juniper are claiming the issue that brought this to the > surface (the bug linked to in my original post) is a problem with the > implementation of TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT. > > My position so far is that the Juniper DX OS is not following the HTTP > standard because it doesn't send a request with the connection, and as I > read the end of section 1.4 of RFC2616, an HTTP connection should be > accompanied by a request. > > Can anyone confirm my interpretation or provide references to firm it > up, or refute it? You can think of TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT as an implicit application close() after a certain timeout, when not receiving a request. All HTTP servers do this anyway (though I think technically they're supposed to send a 408 Request Timeout error it seems many do not). It's a very valid question for Juniper as to why their box is failing to fill requests when its back-end connection has gone away, instead of re-establishing the connection and filling the request. -John - 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