On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
reason NOT to add it. That specification is so full of garbage it's
unbelievable.
Thanks, you've given me one more reason not to even remotely
Predrag Hodoba wrote:
On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
reason NOT to add it. That specification is so full of garbage it's
unbelievable.
Thanks, you've given me one more reason
On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Predrag Hodoba wrote:
On 30/03/07, Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
reason NOT to add it. That specification is so full of garbage it's
If the switchover from active to standby is commanded then there is
the opportunity to tell the applications on the server to close their
connections - either explicitly with some sort of defined interface, or
implicitly by killing the processes. Then the IP can be brought-up on
the standby
On 30/03/07, Rick Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the switchover from active to standby is commanded then there is
the opportunity to tell the applications on the server to close their
connections - either explicitly with some sort of defined interface, or
implicitly by killing the processes.
From: Predrag Hodoba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:56:22 +0200
Need for such an API is to a degree indicated in the Carrier Grade Linux
requirements by The Linux Foundation (former OSDL).
Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a great
reason NOT to add it.
David Miller wrote:
From: Predrag Hodoba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:56:22 +0200
Need for such an API is to a degree indicated in the Carrier Grade Linux
requirements by The Linux Foundation (former OSDL).
Something being in the CGL specification is to me exactly a
Adds an IOCTL for aborting established TCP connections, and is
designed to be an HA performance improvement for cleaning up, failure
notification, and application termination.
Signed-off-by: David Griego [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/ipv6.h |8
include/linux/socket.h
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Griego)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:47:54 -0700
Adds an IOCTL for aborting established TCP connections, and is
designed to be an HA performance improvement for cleaning up, failure
notification, and application termination.
Signed-off-by: David Griego [EMAIL
David Miller wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Griego)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:47:54 -0700
Adds an IOCTL for aborting established TCP connections, and is
designed to be an HA performance improvement for cleaning up, failure
notification, and application termination.
There is no reason for this ioctl at all. Either existing
facilities provide what you need or what you want is a
protocol violation we can't do.
I agree that 99 times out of ten such a mechanism serves only as a
massive KLUDGE to paper-over application bugs. I'll also sadly
point-out that
Mark Huth wrote:
David Miller wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Griego)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:47:54 -0700
Adds an IOCTL for aborting established TCP connections, and is
designed to be an HA performance improvement for cleaning up, failure
notification, and application
John Heffner wrote:
I also believe this is a useful thing to have. I'm not 100% sure this
ioctl is the way to go, but it seems reasonable. This directly
corresponds to writing deleteTcb to the tcpConnectionState variable in
the TCP MIB (RFC 4022). I don't think it constitutes a protocol
From: Mark Huth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:09:30 -0700
Actually, there are legitimate uses for this sort of API. The patch
allows an administrator to kill specific connections that are in use by
other applications, where the close is not available, since the socket
is
From: John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:27:44 -0400
As a concrete example of a way I've used this type of feature is to
defend against a netkill [1] style attack, where the defense involves
making decisions about which connections to kill when memory gets
scarce. It
John Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Responding to myself in good form :P I'll add that there are other ways
to do this currently but all I know of are hackish, f.e. using a raw
socket to send RST packets to yourself.
While not pretty, it is easy enough to ptrace a process using gdb and
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:02:21 +0200
This is what I thought too at the begining.
But after some thinking I recalled having to reboot machines just because
netfilter was not in (because of noticeable performance hit), and I could
find
the tree to
17 matches
Mail list logo
