netdev - Re: Bug? TCP shutdown behaviour when deleting local IP addresses

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

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

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

Message-ID: <1350545382.26103.1103.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
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