* sockets staying in FIN-WAIT-1, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK state till reboot
@ 2022-05-15 14:04 Sami Farin
2022-05-16 15:12 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sami Farin @ 2022-05-15 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Networking Mailing List
Hello,
with 5.15.37, ss -K -t does not properly kill the TCP sockets.
[ Disclaimer: this is my guess of the culprit. I also use wireguard. ]
tcp FIN-WAIT-1 0 1 80.220.8.55:22384 91.198.174.208:443 ino:0 sk:510b cgroup:unreachable:6c46 ---
skmem:(r0,rb87380,t0,tb130560,f0,w0,o0,bl0,d0) ts sack ecn ecnseen bbr wscale:9,10 rto:3744 rtt:33.364/18.714 ato:40 mss:36 pmtu:68 rcvmss:536 advmss:1448 cwnd:1 bytes_sent:701 bytes_acked:702 bytes_received:254 segs_out:6 segs_in:3 data_segs_out:2 data_segs_in:1 bbr:(bw:10176bps,mrtt:27.924,pacing_gain:2.88672,cwnd_gain:2.88672) send 8632bps lastsnd:601107881 lastrcv:601107884 lastack:601107810 pacing_rate 11658680bps delivery_rate 10192bps delivered:3 app_limited busy:23371222ms lost:1 rcv_space:14480 rcv_ssthresh:42242 minrtt:27.924
$ nc -l -p 22384
Ncat: bind to 0.0.0.0:22384: Address already in use. QUITTING.
$ nc -l 127.0.0.1 22384
^C
$
These zombie sockets all have Send-Q > 0.
--
Do what you love because life is too short for anything else.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: sockets staying in FIN-WAIT-1, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK state till reboot
2022-05-15 14:04 sockets staying in FIN-WAIT-1, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK state till reboot Sami Farin
@ 2022-05-16 15:12 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2022-05-16 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sami Farin, Linux Networking Mailing List, Eric Dumazet
On 5/15/22 07:04, Sami Farin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> with 5.15.37, ss -K -t does not properly kill the TCP sockets.
> [ Disclaimer: this is my guess of the culprit. I also use wireguard. ]
>
> tcp FIN-WAIT-1 0 1 80.220.8.55:22384
> 91.198.174.208:443 ino:0 sk:510b cgroup:unreachable:6c46 ---
> skmem:(r0,rb87380,t0,tb130560,f0,w0,o0,bl0,d0) ts sack ecn
> ecnseen bbr wscale:9,10 rto:3744 rtt:33.364/18.714 ato:40 mss:36
> pmtu:68 rcvmss:536 advmss:1448 cwnd:1 bytes_sent:701 bytes_acked:702
> bytes_received:254 segs_out:6 segs_in:3 data_segs_out:2 data_segs_in:1
> bbr:(bw:10176bps,mrtt:27.924,pacing_gain:2.88672,cwnd_gain:2.88672)
> send 8632bps lastsnd:601107881 lastrcv:601107884 lastack:601107810
> pacing_rate 11658680bps delivery_rate 10192bps delivered:3 app_limited
> busy:23371222ms lost:1 rcv_space:14480 rcv_ssthresh:42242 minrtt:27.924
>
> $ nc -l -p 22384
> Ncat: bind to 0.0.0.0:22384: Address already in use. QUITTING.
> $ nc -l 127.0.0.1 22384
> ^C
> $
>
> These zombie sockets all have Send-Q > 0.
That is right.
tcp_abort() currently supports established and SYN_RECV sockets only.
Adding support for TIMEWAIT should not be difficult.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-16 15:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-15 14:04 sockets staying in FIN-WAIT-1, CLOSING, or LAST-ACK state till reboot Sami Farin
2022-05-16 15:12 ` Eric Dumazet
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).