From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756150AbYDJAh1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:37:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754134AbYDJAhN (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:37:13 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.231]:19746 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959AbYDJAhL (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:37:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=UfjeXLua190xNhzQRjtdeKo3N/JC3nEVxxmPTimEikze/4Usi4aL6Y4X+YgL+0HTTu2a85rtYe5t/WickOIE5ni/igzqk03iNAOXOM2PoTLRCYEeM9kvkkL3xMmZJqm05+vQTwZWEhFMKbVztL6ZyA+C97JswHJNsvFXST9mIBA= Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors From: Harvey Harrison To: Mark Lord Cc: David Miller , yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <47FD590C.5020003@rtr.ca> References: <47FCF9DD.6080007@rtr.ca> <20080410.023045.16227424.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <47FD138B.2060801@rtr.ca> <20080409.152933.132174258.davem@davemloft.net> <47FD590C.5020003@rtr.ca> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:37:28 -0700 Message-Id: <1207787848.16220.25.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 20:02 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > David Miller wrote: > > From: Mark Lord > > Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:05:47 -0400 > > > >> But it would be far more useful for whoever has been working on the > >> stack to suggest some possible/likely commits to look at instead. > > > > Personally all I see is that one side closes the socket before all > > data packets received have been read into the application, resulting > > in a (correct) reset going out. > > > > I can't think of any change we've made over the course of this > > release that would change behvaior in that area. > > > > So you will likely need to bisect. > .. > > Or I can ignore it, like the net developers, since I have a workaround. > And then we'll see what other apps are broken upon 2.6.25 final release. > > Really, folks. Bug reports are intended to *help* the developers, > not something to be thrown back in their faces. > > There do seem to have been a *lot* of changes around the tcp closing/close > code (as I see from diff'ing 2.6.24 against latest -git). > > *Somebody* is responsible for those changes. > That particular *somebody* ought to volunteer some help here, > reducing the mountain of commits to a big handful or two. > Could you do a poor-man's bisect and test 2.6.25-rc1 and -rc2, that would probably help a lot to narrow it down. Harvey