From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lennert Buytenhek Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] explicit connection confirmation Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:09:56 -0500 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021107120956.GA10832@gnu.org> References: <20021107093207.GA30666@gnu.org> <20021107112733.GA24283@outpost.ds9a.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: To: bert hubert , netdev@oss.sgi.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021107112733.GA24283@outpost.ds9a.nl> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:27:33PM +0100, bert hubert wrote: > > - Sockets returned from accept() on this socket after this will be > > sockets in the SYN_RECV state instead of the ESTABLISHED state > > (unless syncookies had to be used). By writing to the socket, > > you cause a SYN-ACK to be sent, and by immediately closing the > > socket you cause a RST to be sent. > > And reading, like a webserver would do? Will do nothing, but this can easily be changed. I remind you of the fact that this option has to be explicitly enabled on a listening socket, so that apps have to be adapted to use the new interface anyway. > I think this approach smells, btw - doesn't this mean that processes > will now be woken up on receiving a SYN instead of after completion > of the handshake? Yes, it does mean this. You are free to suggest alternatives. > Would make a synflood all the more interesting.. In case of a synflood, the TCP stack will fall back to sending syncookies as it normally does. cheers, Lennert