lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #26251, RST process in TIME_WAIT TCP state
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #26251: RST process in TIME_WAIT TCP state
Submitter: | Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 20 Apr 2009 11:16:04 AM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Change Request | Status: | Fixed |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | goldsimon |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | CVS Head |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 25 Oct 2009 11:45:37 AM UTC, comment #15: |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 23 Oct 2009 01:46:40 PM UTC, comment #14: A relatively complete implementation of RFC 1337 vs. RFC 793 (chapter 3.9 Event Processing - Segment Arrives) is below. This is relatively complete (the 'acceptable' check is not fully made - only for SYN - but I guess it's OK like that), but the code is also biger than before:
if (flags & TCP_RST) {
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 23 Oct 2009 10:08:28 AM UTC, comment #13: RFC 793 - I meant the same page that you mentioned.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Fri 23 Oct 2009 07:07:14 AM UTC, comment #12: I'd rather make it
fourth, check the SYN bit,
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 22 Oct 2009 05:10:48 PM UTC, comment #11: Ooops
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Thu 22 Oct 2009 04:30:13 PM UTC, comment #10: Thanks for the info. I still can't get used to these global variables in lwIP when I have to avoid global variables at work ;-) |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 22 Oct 2009 04:00:22 PM UTC, comment #9: One note:
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Thu 22 Oct 2009 01:37:48 PM UTC, comment #8:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Wed 21 Oct 2009 03:57:46 PM UTC, comment #7: Given the last few comments, the new body of tcp_timewait_input() would be:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 19 Oct 2009 05:23:03 PM UTC, comment #6:
I don't think that it is good idea to send RST to SYN.
Yes, we should ACK any acceptable seqno.
It exists many variants of generation initial sequence number and in general this number is random.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Mon 19 Oct 2009 04:15:05 PM UTC, comment #5: Oh, and while we're at it: we could think about accepting SYNs in TIME_WAIT as described in RFC 1122... |
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 19 Oct 2009 04:09:39 PM UTC, comment #4: According RFC 793 (although that is somewhat outdated), there is more to do in TIME_WAIT, we should also
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 19 Oct 2009 02:36:51 PM UTC, comment #3: OK, with RST agree with you:
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Sun 18 Oct 2009 08:47:09 AM UTC, comment #2: Hmm, RFC1337 recommends to ignore RST segments in TIME-WAIT state, I doubt that this means sending an ACK for this.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Fri 24 Apr 2009 02:04:47 PM UTC, comment #1: Sorry, for TIME_WAIT exists tcp_timewait_input() and as reply to RST would be sent ACK without close pcb.
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
Mon 20 Apr 2009 11:16:04 AM UTC, original submission:
Last week I saw RFC 1337 "TIME-WAIT Assassination Hazards in TCP".
|
Oleg Tyshev <olegreen> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 9 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009-10-25 | goldsimon | Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |
Status | In Progress | Fixed | |||
2009-10-23 | goldsimon | Status | Fixed | In Progress | |
Open/Closed | Closed | Open | |||
2009-10-22 | goldsimon | Status | None | Fixed | |
Assigned to | None | goldsimon | |||
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2009-10-22 | kieranm | Planned Release | 1.4.0 | 1.3.2 | |
2009-04-21 | kieranm | Planned Release | 1.4.0 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-758e.
Corresponding source code
Checked in like in last comment.