netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: keepalive fixes

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: <20210113202812.GA2746@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:12 -0800
From:   Enke Chen <enkechen2020@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, enkechen2020@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: keepalive fixes

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:06:27PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Eric:
> 
> Just to clarify: the issues for tcp keepalive and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT are
> separate isues, and the fixes would not conflict afaik.
> 
> Thanks.  -- Enke

I have posted patches for both issues, and there is no conflict between
the patches.

Thanks.  -- Enke

> 
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:48 PM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:31 PM Enke Chen <enkechen2020@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Enke Chen <enchen@...oaltonetworks.com>
> > > >
> > > > In this patch two issues with TCP keepalives are fixed:
> > > >
> > > > 1) TCP keepalive does not timeout when there are data waiting to be
> > > >    delivered and then the connection got broken. The TCP keepalive
> > > >    timeout is not evaluated in that condition.
> > > hi enke
> > > Do you have an example to demonstrate this issue -- in theory when
> > > there is data inflight, an RTO timer should be pending (which
> > > considers user-timeout setting). based on the user-timeout description
> > > (man tcp), the user timeout should abort the socket per the specified
> > > time after data commences. some data would help to understand the
> > > issue.
> > >
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > A packetdrill test would be ideal.
> > 
> > Also, given that there is this ongoing issue with TCP_USER_TIMEOUT,
> > lets not mix things
> > or risk added work for backports to stable versions.