Hi, Eric: Just to clarify: the issues for tcp keepalive and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT are separate isues, and the fixes would not conflict afaik.
Thanks. -- Enke On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:48 PM Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:31 PM Enke Chen <enkechen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Enke Chen <enc...@paloaltonetworks.com> > > > > > > In this patch two issues with TCP keepalives are fixed: > > > > > > 1) TCP keepalive does not timeout when there are data waiting to be > > > delivered and then the connection got broken. The TCP keepalive > > > timeout is not evaluated in that condition. > > hi enke > > Do you have an example to demonstrate this issue -- in theory when > > there is data inflight, an RTO timer should be pending (which > > considers user-timeout setting). based on the user-timeout description > > (man tcp), the user timeout should abort the socket per the specified > > time after data commences. some data would help to understand the > > issue. > > > > +1 > > A packetdrill test would be ideal. > > Also, given that there is this ongoing issue with TCP_USER_TIMEOUT, > lets not mix things > or risk added work for backports to stable versions.
