From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 19 14:14:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E1B16A47A for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:14:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB9843D72 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:14:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 48809 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2006 14:14:31 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Jun 2006 14:14:31 -0000 Message-ID: <4496B158.3090907@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:14:48 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Blue References: <4496721C.5030008@zyxel.com.tw> In-Reply-To: <4496721C.5030008@zyxel.com.tw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-6.1RELEASE] tcp in TIME_WAIT state X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:14:54 -0000 Blue wrote: > Hi, all: > > In function tcp_timewait(), which will be called when receiving a > segment as current TCP state at TIME_WAIT. However, in the body of the > function definition, it simply goes to "drop" before generating RST or > RST/ACK towards the unicast source. Is the behavior correct because the > followed codes (from line 2228 to line 3261) would never be reached! Yes, this code was never used. After the 'goto drop;' there used to be a 'reset:' label. However it was never used and got lost in rev. 1.254 because of compiler warnings. The code is related to the comment earlier in the function: "NOTE: for FIN_WAIT_2 (to be added later), must validate sequence number before accepting RST". I agree that is very confusing and I shall put an appropriate comment next to it. -- Andre