Hi, On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 05:04, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 19:27 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > I understand why you might want this, but it smells like the same > > kind of problems that the "forced unmount" patch had which eventually > > led to it not being accepted in mainline. Lots of corner > > cases and race conditions waiting to blow up. > > Well, disconnecting a TCP socket seems straightforward, once you get a > sk pointer. > > Code looks good. > > > > > Look at the issues that the multi-thread socket close has. > > This looks worse. > > I do not see a problem here. A RST packet has roughly same effect, and > we do process them. > > Cookies are 64bits and uniquely identify a socket. > > Once you make sure the request comes from a privileged user, we are > good. > > This user could easily install some iptables rules to generate RST > packets anyway.
I bet there will soon be a timewaitd which handles the not configurable (David has rejected all those patches so far) timeout of TIME_WAIT sockets. And I bet it will be used. :/ Bye, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
