Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/2] tcp: Add net.ipv4.tcp_purge_receive_queue sysctl

[Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>]

On 2026/7/15 23:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 5:26 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> On 2026/7/15 23:15, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 4:54 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>> index 61045a8886e4..4f1027173e95 100644
>>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>> @@ -4853,6 +4853,7 @@ void tcp_done_with_error(struct sock *sk, int err)
>>>>  /* When we get a reset we do this. */
>>>>  void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>  {
>>>> +       const struct net *net = sock_net(sk);
>>>>         int err;
>>>>
>>>>         trace_tcp_receive_reset(sk);
>>>> @@ -4869,6 +4870,27 @@ void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>                 err = ECONNREFUSED;
>>>>                 break;
>>>>         case TCP_CLOSE_WAIT:
>>>> +               /* RFC9293 3.10.7.4. Other States
>>>> +                *   Second, check the RST bit:
>>>> +                *     CLOSE-WAIT STATE
>>>> +                *
>>>> +                * If the RST bit is set, then any outstanding RECEIVEs and
>>>> +                * SEND should receive "reset" responses.  All segment queues
>>>> +                * should be flushed.  Users should also receive an unsolicited
>>>> +                * general "connection reset" signal.  Enter the CLOSED state,
>>>> +                * delete the TCB, and return.
>>>> +                *
>>>> +                * If net.ipv4.tcp_purge_receive_queue is enabled,
>>>> +                * sk_receive_queue will be flushed too.
>>>> +                */
>>>> +               if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_purge_receive_queue))) {
>>>> +                       struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
>>>> +
>>>> +                       skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_receive_queue);
>>>> +                       WRITE_ONCE(tp->copied_seq, tp->rcv_nxt);
>>>> +                       WRITE_ONCE(tp->urg_data, 0);
>>>> +                       sk_set_peek_off(sk, -1);
>>>> +               }
>>>>                 err = EPIPE;
>>>>                 break;
>>>>         case TCP_CLOSE:
>>>> --
>>>> 2.55.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> My thoughts are:
>>>
>>> out_of_order_queue has been forgotten. skbs could be there and still
>>> 'block devmem'
>>>
>>> WRITE_ONCE(tp->copied_seq, tp->rcv_nxt) is certainly wrong, because
>>> read() will return 0, instead of -1 (errno = EPIPE or ECONNRESET)
>>> So the application will not know a RST was received :/
>>>
>>> I think that BSD and linux implementations have historically retained
>>> acknowledged,
>>> buffered receive data upon RST to allow applications to drain data
>>> already ACKed prior to the reset.
>>>
>>> Adding a narrow sysctl specifically for CLOSE_WAIT creates
>>> inconsistent behavior across TCP states.
>>
>>
>> Got it. I won't pursue this sysctl approach in the future. Thanks for
>> the review.
> 
> My intention was not to kill your proposal, only to start a conversation...

Thanks for clarifying. I agree this approach needs more thought.

Thanks,
Leon