From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: BSD 4.2 style TCP keepalives
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:04:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20100106.150453.186399201.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20100105.163911.10233438.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20100106.002328.141253811.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nhorman@tuxdriver.com, ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48843
	"EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860Ab0AFXEr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:04:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20100106.002328.141253811.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:23:28 -0800 (PST)

> Special casing the seq == end_seq == tp->rcv_wup case using
> something like:
> 
> 		(after(end_seq, tp->rcv_wup) ||
> 		 (end_seq == tp->rcv_wup && seq == end_seq)) &&
> 
> might work, but I'm not confident that's exactly what we want at the
> moment, as it partially defeats what this code is trying to do (let us
> accept URG/FIN/RST after seq and end_seq are truncated to the window).

I did some more research and everything I've said here turns
out to be moot.

We should be ACK'ing these things anyways.  Here is why:

1) if tcp_sequence() accepts the sequence we continue on in
   tcp_established()

2) We make it to tcp_data_queue() unless tcp_ack() finds that the
   ACK sequence is invalid (it covers data we never sent).

3) tcp_data_queue() should make it to, and hit, this conditional:

	if (!after(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq, tp->rcv_nxt)) {

   which will schedule an ACK the same exact way we would if
   tcp_sequence() rejected the sequence range.

So it's a mystery why we aren't responding to Windows 2000's
BSD 4.2 style zero window probes.

Can someone please validate my analysis?

Someone with access to a system exhibiting this will probably need to
do some diagnostics to figure out what's going on.