From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Banerjee, Debabrata" Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp resets are misrouted Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:47:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <62162DF05402B341B3DB59932A1FA992BB7FD4730D@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" , "sol@eqv.ru" To: Shawn Lu , Debabrata Banerjee , Alexey Kuznetsov Return-path: Received: from prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com ([72.246.2.14]:42186 "EHLO prod-mail-xrelay02.akamai.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757703Ab2JLRzC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:55:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <62162DF05402B341B3DB59932A1FA992BB7FD4730D@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I was trying to think of the scenario you were running into, since it falls back to using a route lookup. You do not have routes on your machine that would correctly send the packet, I assume? Then it simply comes down to the kernel doesn't have enough information to know where to send the packet. Debabrata On 10/12/12 1:31 PM, "Shawn Lu" wrote: >I admit the commit e2446eaa did break the reset in asymmetric case. >There are also many use cases in interface binding, we don't want to >break it too... I am ok with your patch, if asymmetric route take higher >priority. Somehow, we need come up with another one to resolve RST lost >in binding interface case, otherwise, people using interface binding will >find later on that RST break again... > >thanks! > >Shawn Lu > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debabrata Banerjee [mailto:dbavatar@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:57 AM >> To: Alexey Kuznetsov; Banerjee, Debabrata >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; davem@davemloft.net; Shawn Lu; >> eric.dumazet@gmail.com; sol@eqv.ru >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp resets are misrouted >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov >> wrote: >> >> >> We ran into this as well and pulled that commit from our >> tree, it was causing serious problems. Sending the RST back >> on the iif was definitely the wrong thing to do. Patch looks >> good to me. >> >> Thanks, >> Debabrata >>