Re: [PATCH] tcp: keepalive fixes

[Enke Chen <enkechen2020@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:06:27PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Eric:
> 
> Just to clarify: the issues for tcp keepalive and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT are
> separate isues, and the fixes would not conflict afaik.
> 
> Thanks.  -- Enke

I have posted patches for both issues, and there is no conflict between
the patches.

Thanks.  -- Enke

> 
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:48 PM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:31 PM Enke Chen <enkechen2020@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>
> > > >
> > > > In this patch two issues with TCP keepalives are fixed:
> > > >
> > > > 1) TCP keepalive does not timeout when there are data waiting to be
> > > >    delivered and then the connection got broken. The TCP keepalive
> > > >    timeout is not evaluated in that condition.
> > > hi enke
> > > Do you have an example to demonstrate this issue -- in theory when
> > > there is data inflight, an RTO timer should be pending (which
> > > considers user-timeout setting). based on the user-timeout description
> > > (man tcp), the user timeout should abort the socket per the specified
> > > time after data commences. some data would help to understand the
> > > issue.
> > >
> > 
> > +1
> > 
> > A packetdrill test would be ideal.
> > 
> > Also, given that there is this ongoing issue with TCP_USER_TIMEOUT,
> > lets not mix things
> > or risk added work for backports to stable versions.