From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] network: return errors if we know tcp_connect failed Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:28:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20101112.112836.183042210.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20101111210341.31350.86916.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20101112174620.GA16544@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eparis@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54549 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756825Ab0KLT2L (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:28:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101112174620.GA16544@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Alexey Kuznetsov Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:46:20 +0300 > The only loophole is ICMP error in the same case as yours. In > _violation_ of specs linux immediately aborts unestablished connect > on an icmp error. IMHO that thing which you suggest is correct (of > course, provided you filter out transient errors and react only to > EPERM or something like this). It was not done because it was > expected firewall rule prescribing immediate abort is configured > with "--reject-with icmp-port-unreachable", otherwise the rule > orders real blackhole. The idea to signal on -EPERM might be OK, but if that's also what things like "-m statistical" and friends end up reporting then we still cannot do it.