[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1447858590.895715.443293345.0FE778BF@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:56:30 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 15:45, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> > I was not saying using tcp_close literally, sorry for not making that
> > clear, but just model the state transitions after tcp_close. At least it
> > seems like a normal close to me.
>
> But it shouldn't be a normal close. Consider calling SOCK_DESTROY on a
> socket that is streaming data to a peer. If SOCK_DESTROY results in
> the kernel sending a FIN, the remote side might think that the sender
> closed the connection gracefully, even though the local side aborted
> the connection.
Oh, yes, I understand. The connection wasn't closed by the application
but by the administrator forcefully. So we should never indicate a
successful TCP shutdown with FIN but with RST. A TIME_WAIT period
actuallty still seems useful to me, maybe with different semantics, only
RST incoming data?
Bye,
Hannes
--
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