On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 05:33:53PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About uglyness. Violations of protocol are ugly. When all
> the things proceed in a legal way undistingushable,
> it is beautiful. 8)
Ok, I'm convinced. The only thing I don't like is that to untrained
observers, the repeated S
Hello!
> Ok, this surely is incorrect. However, sending spurious SYNACK packets
> doesn't seem like the way to solve this problem.
They are _not_ spurious. Connection did not enter ESTABLISHED state.
If it entered this state, we would have no rights to timeout.
It should be closed with FIN etc.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 04:56:41PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > Connection established, and I send no data
>
> But why did you set DEFER_ACCEPT then? 8)
I was just experimenting.
> It becomes legal, as soon as we do not enter ESTABLISHED
> state. Your ACK is just ignored and
Hello!
> Connection established, and I send no data
But why did you set DEFER_ACCEPT then? 8)
I explained when it can be used.
> packet. Why would we lose the connection?
Not enter "quit", wait until connection will timeout.
(It is not very soon normally). And look what happens.
Hint: the p
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 04:25:39PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Until actively connecting client will send some data,
> service will and must retransmit syn-ack. Otherwise you will lose connection.
I don't see why. This is a trace with my patch applied, can you tell me
what's wrong with it?
Hello!
> The SYN/ACK handshake appears to go well, and telnet reports a connection
> (the daemon doesn't, no data has been sent). However, Linux keeps sending
> SYNs, which keep getting ACKed. I'm not sure if this is desired behavior. It
> appears to be a side effect of the TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT timeo
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 02:03:37PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> From a userland perspective, it works very well. It just wastes packets.
>
> > Sorry for advertising it as a working feature.
>
> The fix should be easy. I'm looking in to it.
This patch fixes TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT support. First the pa
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 11:48:22AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Patch follows beneath. On a related note, I'm not sure if this is right
> > (connecting to a daemon using TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT)
>
> Yes, looks very broken. I guess there was a reason why it was never
> documented.
>From a userland pers
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 09:44:31PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:50:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Linux 2.4 has the "dataready" filter in form of the (currently undocumented)
> > TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT option.
>
> Patch follows beneath. On a related note, I'm not sure if
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 08:50:54AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Linux 2.4 has the "dataready" filter in form of the (currently undocumented)
> TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT option.
Patch follows beneath. On a related note, I'm not sure if this is right
(connecting to a daemon using TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT)
# tcpdump
10 matches
Mail list logo
