Re: [tcpm] Is this a problem?

[Ethan Blanton <[e-mail]>]

Ethan Blanton spake unto us the following wisdom:
> It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that close() returns
> immediately, regardless of queued data in the send buffer.  In
> addition, I am not aware of any way to force a reset on a TCP socket
> without pending data in the read buffer.

SO_LINGER is indeed more flexible than I have used it for -- it can be
used to solve both of these problems.  For the benefit of those
listening:

1) Set SO_LINGER with l_onoff != 0 and l_linger = timeout in seconds.
2) If a nonblocking close returns EWOULDBLOCK, the linger timeout
   expired, so:
   2a) set SO_LINGER with l_onoff != 0 and l_linger = 0
   2b) call close, which will emit a RST

I recant my previous claims -- this can be handled cleanly with
standard sockets.

> > > It does not seem unreasonable to add a zero-window timeout tunable to
> > > any given TCP implementation; I don't necessarily think it is a TCP
> > > standardization issue, however, as there is no wire impact.

I do stand by this, however.

Ethan

-- 
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
for evils].  They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes.
		-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm