Hi,
yes, tcp is free to discard receive buffer on receiving RST
however after looking through the source code of linux kernel, it seems
that process just set state of socket, not discard data in receive buffer.
1. tcp_validate_incoming
5184 /* Step 2: check RST bit */
5185 if (th->rst) {
5186 tcp_reset(sk);
5187 goto discard;
5188 }
2. tcp_reset
4055 if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
4056 sk->sk_error_report(sk);
4057
4058 tcp_done(sk);
3. tcp_done
3183 void tcp_done(struct sock *sk)
3184 {
3185 if (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_SENT || sk->sk_state ==
TCP_SYN_RECV)
3186 TCP_INC_STATS_BH(sock_net(sk), TCP_MIB_ATTEMPTFAILS);
3187
3188 tcp_set_state(sk, TCP_CLOSE);
3189 tcp_clear_xmit_timers(sk);
3190
3191 sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
3192
3193 if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
3194 sk->sk_state_change(sk);
3195 else
3196 inet_csk_destroy_sock(sk);
3197 }
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Michael Wojcik <
michael.woj...@microfocus.com> wrote:
> Just to amplify on Jakob's response: the reason that sometimes you see the
> reply is that sometimes your application manages to get it from the stack
> before the stack receives and processes the RST from the peer. In the
> example you provided, there was a 52ms window in which you could have read
> that response before the RST told the stack to throw it away.
>
>
>
> If the conversation is aborting for cause - for example because the peer
> process exited without reading some received data - then this is the
> correct behavior. If the peer is causing the RST by mucking around with the
> SO_LINGER socket option, then the peer application is probably broken.
> (There are cases where an application might legitimately want to send an
> RST rather than a FIN, but they're few and far between.)
>
>
>
> In any event, you're at the mercy of TCP's semantics. When the
> conversation is aborted, rather than terminated normally, unprocessed data
> goes away. That's a Good Thing, because the peer has no way of knowing
> whether you received it.
>
>
>
> As is usually the case with this sort of issue, the real question is what
> problem are you actually trying to solve? "How can I make TCP behave
> differently?" is not the right question.
>
>
>
> Michael Wojcik
> Technology Specialist, Micro Focus
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openssl-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
>
>
--
Anty Rao
_______________________________________________
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
