netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] net: tcp: move to timewait when receiving data post active-close

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20151119.121101.531386600459835141.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:11:01 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	fw@...len.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] net: tcp: move to timewait when receiving data
 post active-close

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:46:31 -0800

> Anyway, having a TIMEWAIT setup after sending a RST makes little
> sense to me.
> 
> When a RST packet is sent, the remote peer will forget everything about
> this previous connection, and another connect() might reuse the tuple
> and I do not think we should forbid this. Normal PAWS checks were
> invented for a good reason.
> 
> RFC 1122, 4.2.2.13 can be interpreted in very different ways.

I think it is clear that once RST is emitted, that connection ID
no longer exists, on both ends.

Sender of RST must not have that matching state, and receiver of
RST must tear things down.
--
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