On Fri, August 3, 2007 09:25, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:58:03PM +0100, Simon Arlott ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: >> 19:24:32.897071 IP 192.168.7.4.50000 > 192.168.7.8.2500: S >> 705362199:705362199(0) win 1500 >> 19:24:32.897211 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50000: S >> 4159455228:4159455228(0) ack 705362200 win >> 14360 <mss 7180> >> 19:24:32.920784 IP 192.168.7.4.50000 > 192.168.7.8.2500: . ack 1 win 1500 >> 19:24:32.921732 IP 192.168.7.4.50000 > 192.168.7.8.2500: P 1:17(16) ack 1 >> win 1500 >> 19:24:32.921795 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50000: . ack 17 win 14360 >> 19:24:32.922881 IP 192.168.7.4.50000 > 192.168.7.8.2500: R >> 705362216:705362216(0) win 1500 >> 19:24:34.927717 IP 192.168.7.8.2500 > 192.168.7.4.50000: R 1:1(0) ack 17 win >> 14360 >> >> According to RFC 793, the RST from .4 means that the connection >> is CLOSED. > > RFC 2525 - common tcp problems, says we should send RST in this case, > although it does not specify should we send it if socket is in CLOSED > state or not. Well, we send :) > Even if tcp_send_active_reset() will check if socket is in CLOSED state > and will not send data, but is still there, it will not be easily > triggered though, but it can be possible.
Since the connection is considered closed, couldn't another socket re-use it? Socket A: Recv data (unread) Socket A: Recv RST Socket B: Reuses connection (same IPs/ports) Socket A: Close Wouldn't that disrupt socket B's use of the connection? -- Simon Arlott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
