> What harm is caused by these stale sessions? I thought that was the > intended behaviour. >
our system stability guys concern about this. when its count grows up too much, whether it can be harm to system or not. > If you look at the original design discussions that led to the > SOCK_DESTROY and tcp_abort patch, the goal of SOCK_DESTROY was not > primarily to clear TCP state, but primarily to unblock applications > that were stuck in blocking socket operations such as read(), write() > and connect. That is the reason why it only calls tcp_done if the > SOCK_DEAD flag is not set. See in particular > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg352716.html , where opposition > was voiced to being able to close sockets in TIME_WAIT_STATE. That > said, I don't have a strong opinion on this: whatever works for Eric > works for me. > ok, i got your saying about purpose of SOCK_DESTROY. maybe we have two options. add a new point that can managing those tcp sessions. or, just let it them. thanks!
