On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Harald Welte wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 12:18:17AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Fortunately, tcpdump showed to me that all stuck sessions had in common the
> > fact that the server aborted them with an RST after the first FIN+ACK, so
> > in CLOSE_WAIT. Others which were aborted with an RST just before or just after
> > were destroyed without any problem.
>
> Ok, this sounds like a pretty clear case than. This bug has not been
> found because replying with RST afer FIN+ACK seems a quite unusual
> pattern.
>
> > /*rst*/ {sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sLA, sLI },
> >
> > But the tcp_window_tracking patch changes this behaviour, I think because of
> > a typo, since I see no other reason not to terminate a session upon RST :
> >
> > /* sNO, sSS, sSR, sES, sFW, sCW, sLA, sTW, sCL, sLI */
> > /*rst*/ { sIV, sCL, sCL, sCL, sCL, sIV, sCL, sCL, sCL, sIV },
>
> yes, I totally agree with you. I'll apply your proposed patch to
> patch-o-matic. If Jozsef disagrees, he can revert that change.
I agree completely.
> > BTW, is it normal that an RST received in TIME_WAIT state terminates the
> > session ? I would have thought that we should keep it in TIME_WAIT anyway.
>
> again agreed. Jozsef, what do you think?
It's normal, but highly unusual I think. (Were it an "optimization" of TCP?)
Thank you very much the nice analysis and report.
Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
