[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <541831C3.9020705@oktetlabs.ru>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:49:07 +0400
From: Andrey Dmitrov <andrey.dmitrov@...etlabs.ru>
To: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Alexandra N. Kossovsky" <Alexandra.Kossovsky@...etlabs.ru>,
Konstantin Ushakov <kostik@...etlabs.ru>
Subject: Re: TCP connection will hang in FIN_WAIT1 after closing if zero window
is advertised
On 16/09/14 03:37, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> I think the vulnerability comes from the peer/attacker actually
> responds to the probes to evade the orphan counts or memory checks in
> tcp_probe_timer(). This is a gray area of being legit but suspiciously
> mis-behaving?
> maybe have socket option TCP_USER_TIMEOUT for apps to cover conditions
> like these.
Yuchung,
I've tried to use socket option TCP_USER_TIMEOUT, but unfortunately it
does not help here. I think it is because all packets get their
acknowledges.
To everybody,
As I understand there is a sensitive difference in the connection
behavior when the zero window is advertised. In this case there is no
warranty that after socket closing the connection will be actually
closed in a finite time. And probably this cannot be regulated at the
moment. On the other hand if the zero window was not advertised, user
can be sure that the connection is closed in a finite time despite on
any peer actions. Moreover user can configure this time with the
corresponding timeouts. I.e. a user has a lot of options to configure
different timeouts, but in fact despite on his actions he has no
guarantee that the connection will be closed at all.
Thanks,
Andrey
--
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