From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 14 10:06:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD67D336 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.69.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 464871445 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0EA6CWQ024503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:12 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s0EA6Cec024502; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:12 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:12 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Matthew Grooms Subject: Re: TCP socket handling lo[X], buggy in 9.x? Message-ID: <20140114100612.GR8472@FreeBSD.org> References: <52D4E633.1060000@shrew.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D4E633.1060000@shrew.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:06:15 -0000 Matthew, On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:24:35AM -0600, Matthew Grooms wrote: M> It looks like the 9.2 host is sending a reset before sending every PDU. M> Weird. In any case, this is really easy to re-produce. Anyone have an M> idea as to why this started happening? I didn't try FreeBSD 10, but I M> suspect the problem is the same. I failed to reproduce that on couple of FreeBSD 11 boxes. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.