Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:45:43 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Wrong timeout for SYN segments | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:12:30 -0700
> On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 10:25 -0700, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote: > >> But it probably matter slightly more for TCP Fast Open (the server >> side patch has >> been completed and will be posted soon, after I finish breaking it up >> into smaller >> pieces for ease of review purpose), when a full socket will be created with data >> passed to the app upon a valid SYN+data. Dropping a fully functioning socket >> won't be the same as dropping a request_sock unknown to the app and letting >> the other side retransmitting SYN (w/o data this time). >> >> > >> > Sure, RFC numbers are what they are, but in practice, I doubt someone >> > will really miss the extra SYNACK sent after ~32 seconds, since it would >> > matter only for the last SYN attempted. >> >> I'd slightly prefer 1 extra retry plus longer wait time just to make >> TCP Fast Open >> a little more robust (even though the app protocol is required to be >> idempotent). >> But this is not a showstopper. > > Thats very good points indeed, thanks. > > Maybe we can increase SYNACK max retrans only if the FastOpen SYN cookie > was validated. > > This way, we increase reliability without amplifying the effect of wild > SYN packets.
Can we come to a final conclusion on this last point and arrive at a final patch?
Thanks.
| |