| To: | "Andi Kleen" <ak@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: question about linux tcp request queue handling |
| From: | "Paul Albrecht" <palbrecht@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:23:37 -0700 |
| Cc: | niv@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "netdev" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3F08858E.8000907@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><001a01c3441c$6fe111a0$6801a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><3F08B7E2.7040208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><000d01c3444f$e6439600$6801a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><3F090A4F.10004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><001401c344df$ccbc63c0$6801a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <p73fzliqa91.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Andi Kleen writes: > > The 4.4BSD-Lite code described in Stevens is long outdated. All modern > BSDs (and probably most other Unixes too) do it in a similar way to what > Nivedita described. The keywords are "syn flood attack" and "DoS". > I have attached a copy of tcpdump output for two linux systems connected over ether replaying the scenario for incoming request queue handling given in Stevens's TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1: The Protocols. What I don't understand about the third handshake is if the server is going to send the syn/ack in response the client's initial syn then why does server repeatly ignore the subsequent ack from the client?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: shutdown() and SHUT_RD on TCP sockets - broken?, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] netdev_ops, Matthew Wilcox |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: question about linux tcp request queue handling, Paul Albrecht |
| Next by Thread: | virus found in sent message "Re: Movie", System Anti-Virus Administrator |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |