From: Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:46:31 -0800
> Anyway, having a TIMEWAIT setup after sending a RST makes little > sense to me. > > When a RST packet is sent, the remote peer will forget everything about > this previous connection, and another connect() might reuse the tuple > and I do not think we should forbid this. Normal PAWS checks were > invented for a good reason. > > RFC 1122, 4.2.2.13 can be interpreted in very different ways. I think it is clear that once RST is emitted, that connection ID no longer exists, on both ends. Sender of RST must not have that matching state, and receiver of RST must tear things down. -- 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
