From: Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:13:48 +0900
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:49 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> The more I think about it more the more I agree with him and dislike >> having user space make sure "it's ok", that isn't where TCP protocol >> semantic rules are implemented. It belongs in the kernel. > > Today any app can always, on one of its sockets, set SO_LINGER with a > timeout of 0 and call tcp_close. That results in immediately sending a > RST and forgetting about local state. (Those semantics are the ones of > RFC 793 ABORT.) If SOCK_DESTROY did that instead of just calling > tcp_done, would that be acceptable? What I object to is userspace making reachability decisions, not whether SOCK_DESTROY closes the socket in one way or the other. -- 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
