lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #55590, Zero window probe breaks incoming...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #55590: Zero window probe breaks incoming TCP stream
Submitter: | Puneet <puneetsharma> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 28 Jan 2019 02:00:00 PM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | None |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | git head |
Sat 08 Feb 2020 12:49:46 PM UTC, comment #2: |
David van Moolenbroek <dcvmoole> |
Tue 04 Feb 2020 09:04:34 PM UTC, comment #1: Hmm, I can' tell why we're using 1 byte probes. But looking at commit 9ba9dee2, I can also not understand it.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Mon 28 Jan 2019 02:00:00 PM UTC, original submission:
<h3>
|
Puneet <puneetsharma> |
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.
Follows 1 latest change.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020-02-04 | goldsimon | Carbon-Copy | - | Added david van moolenbroek <david@minix3.org> |
Powered by Savane 3.13-3230.
Corresponding source code
It's still valid! This has been a while, though. What I can add:
- The main reference here is Bug #49128, which contains more details about the issue I reported at the time;
- As the bug report shows, the problem was easily reproduced and very clear-cut, whereas the solution I came up with was.. not something I was fully confident about, and quite possibly incomplete or even wrong;
- When I looked into this, I noted down the following link with some background information, although I don't know how valuable it really is here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/wireshark-dev@wireshark.org/msg03801.html
- Using zero-length zero window probes is probably a much better idea, but will obviously also require an even better look at the current code;
- I don't really see how wireshark would draw the "previous segment not captured" conclusion though, seeing as the byte was in fact sent, or am I reading that wrong?