[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911171402260.7024@wel-95.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:07:08 +0200 (EET)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v6 4/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1d: define TCP cookie
option, extend existing struct's
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> William Allen Simpson a écrit :
> > Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >> I remember a previous remark from David that our skb queues would not
> >> contain
> >> DATA on SYN packets...
> >>
> > I haven't seen anything by David, but there's an existing comment in
> > tcp_input.c at the place where SYN data will be added later:
> >
>
> Yep, David comment was about another netdev thread, while tracking an
> obscure bug
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg110759.html
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg110764.html
>
>
> So adding DATA to SYN packets might be problematic for part of our tcp
> stack.
You both are right (and that's what is causing confusion)... What DaveM
said is this:
"And we're only dealing with data packets once we enter established
state, and when we enter established by definition we have unlinked
and freed up any SYN and SYN+ACK SKBs in the write queue."
We certainly can have SYN/SYNACKs in write queue but not in certain
states, and consequently, not in certain functions.
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists