From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:47:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1365443267.3887.28.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <20130408154519.18177.57709.stgit@localhost> <3541094.5siDbVn1lC@sifl> <1365442586.3887.26.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1558855.HGIqa4tJdt@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com To: Paul Moore Return-path: Received: from mail-da0-f50.google.com ([209.85.210.50]:45007 "EHLO mail-da0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763332Ab3DHRru (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:47:50 -0400 Received: by mail-da0-f50.google.com with SMTP id t1so2702040dae.9 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:47:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1558855.HGIqa4tJdt@sifl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 13:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > Sort of a similar problem, but not really the same. Also, arguably, there is > no real associated sock/socket for a RST so orphaning the packet makes sense. > In the case of a SYNACK we can, and should, associate the packet with a > sock/socket. What is the intent ? This kind of requirement has a huge cost, and thats why I want a hook instead of a 'generic thing' Please read : http://workshop.netfilter.org/2013/wiki/images/3/3a/NFWS-TCP.pdf