On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:06:27PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote: > 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
I have posted patches for both issues, and there is no conflict between the patches. 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.
