| To: | hidden@xxxxxxxxxx (Kovacs Krisztian) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Re: [PATCH] ipv4 tcp autobind problem |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:56:41 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx (David S. Miller), jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bazsi@xxxxxxxxxx (Balazs Scheidler) |
| In-reply-to: | <3F7990FB.7030606@balabit.hu> from "Kovacs Krisztian" at σΕΞ 30, 2003 04:19:39 |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > - When the socket is closed (inet_release() is called, tproxy has its > "callback" function here), the corresponding entries are deleted from > tproxy's hash tables, again, based on the local ip:port pair. The mistake is here. inet_release() has nothing to do to connection state. Socket is not closed at this point, it goes to FIN-WAIT*, LAST-ACK or something like this and can exist for long time after this and proxying is to be continued all this time. Right place to finish tracking is when socket is removed from TCP hash tables, and to start tracking is when the socket is inserted to TCP hash tables. BTW you would not see the problem with binding if it was made right. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Implementation for IPv6 MIB:ipv6AddressTable, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TCP:Is it possible for both sk->dead==1 and sk->lock.users==1 to be true?, zrzeng |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] spinlock badness in last dongle changes., Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] ipv4 tcp autobind problem, Kovacs Krisztian |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |