Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:04:21 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Wrong timeout for SYN segments | From | "H.K. Jerry Chu" <> |
| |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > 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.
Acked-by: H.K. Jerry Chu <hkchu@google.com>
| |