From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 7 23:40:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19152BF; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:40:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DD241B45; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:40:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s07Ne2oM074130; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:40:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <52CC903C.5090706@sentex.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:39:40 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Wemm , freebsd-net@freebsd.org, eadler@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP question: Is this simultaneous close handling broken? References: <52CB3AE9.3030107@wemm.org> <52CC5F2E.5030201@wemm.org> <52CC8246.7080609@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <52CC8246.7080609@wemm.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 23:40:05 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 1/7/2014 5:40 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > The packet may be dropped without processing the FIN flag. > MFC after: never Hi, Are there any potential side effects to this fix ? The original author said they were not going to MFC due to possible regressions. I know you probably see more FreeBSD traffic then most at Y!, and so are very sensitive to this, but thought I would ask for clarification. ---Mike - -- - ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSzJA8AAoJEJXHwM2kc8rXYJUH/3Hb7Yh7Lv/sAEjRjN5gN9id C9B6OlBY3NWfSVYTFngBzqcePuxsGXD4gELA1QQuGa4B2/dYgu62u0+zDdfCyVGx 7WVQlsrg2To9y8Z4SCZ3vCHJ20GxTNtCJEcySldcvCl8Z2Xn2cIk0BQmi5n7icVx z0ZIcWBTCNskfcLI6jHNFZ6dslRQy3xyleOpp1heQUyaVpfMRNZvOfoL1hnEnS9H FpnhIdFSKJ48b9Vw4Xql62A+LfCUHHa/Ey8rjEp5K90FTByPcNaDiVddNHZmBVAO lTmOobA2zsFzSh3fgnXikjCS4MA+3rTKHscduihk4vf6AIKLWx00h4Bp0n7AGoY= =+cGv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----