Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:39:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:39:48 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:9726 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:39:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Weirdness with AF_INET listen() backlog [2.4.18] From: Alan Cox To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <7911.1028039755@www55.gmx.net> References: <7911.1028039755@www55.gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 30 Jul 2002 16:59:22 +0100 Message-Id: <1028044762.6726.44.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1090 Lines: 23 On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 15:35, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > I had expected that if a server creates a listening socket, but does not > accept() the incoming connections, then after the (possibly fudge-factored) > Is this all expected behaviour? If so, is there a way of getting Linux to > behave more like other implementations here? (As a wild shot I tried setting > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies to 0, but this made no apparent > difference.) The world of tcp synflooding changed how stacks handle this sort of stuff forever. Welcome to the new world order 8) You will get connections completing, they will time out. If you expect the server to say something you'll see the timeout there instead of seeing it on the connect. Since a timeout on the data can happen in the real world Im sure your code already correctly handles this case ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/