[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAABZP2z6=4bC7qzDdPVjFB10NFioqtspXGTgw_=62o29=VFa+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 18:34:39 +0800
From: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
dsahern@...nel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei Xu <xuweihf@...c.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net:ipv4: send an ack when seg.ack > snd.nxt
Dear Florian
Thank you for reviewing my patch ;-)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 6:04 PM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>
> zhouzhouyi@...il.com <zhouzhouyi@...il.com> wrote:
> > - if (after(ack, tp->snd_nxt))
> > + if (after(ack, tp->snd_nxt)) {
> > + tcp_send_ack(sk);
> > return -1;
> > + }
>
> If we really need to do this we need to
> if (!(flag & FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK))
Yes, we need to check FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK here to avoid two acks.
> tcp_send_challenge_ack(sk);
>
> ... else this might result in two acks?
> Whats the problem thats being fixed here?
We fix the code to let it match what RFC 793 page 72 has described. I
guess this is also what the intermediate internet devices (routers,
firewalls for example) expect us to do ;-)
Thanks again
Zhouyi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists