netdev - Re: Problem with implementation of TCP_DEFER

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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