Re: Dynamic IP hack (PR#294)

kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru
Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:13:37 +0400 (MSK DST)


Hello!

> IFF_DYNAMIC doesn't try to change the addresses, it simply knows that the
> connection is lost because the user gurantees that the IP address is gone
> and cannot be recovered. Because that fact is known for sure it simply
> calls tcp_reset on the connection to kill it. The 2.0 RST
> hack used an indirect scheme, it will send out an packet with wrong
> source and assumes the other end will RST it.

If address is deleted it has very good chances to be restored
couple of seconds later after redialing or something.
And no flag can grant the opposite statement.

I want to stress again: tcp resets may be caused only
by tcp protocol itself or by user request: they cannot be generated
because of problem of lower layer of ANY KIND.
All of such kind of problems are transient by definition.

Certainly, it does apply only to established state,
rather than to TCP_SYN_SENT and to pending openreqs.

> So an sk->userbind flag is the way to go I think.

Excellent. What do you think, if it was sk->autobound flag?
Set it in inet_autobind(), and reset in bind() or getsockname().
Seems, it is better or not?

Alexey

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/