Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:53:13 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@juniper.net> To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: Richard Jones <richard@a42.deep-thought.org>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, dg@root.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD TCP stack and RST processing [subj changed] Message-ID: <199710021653.JAA05848@base.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:37:36 PDT." <199710020137.SAA16461@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD TCP stack and RST processing [subj changed]
On Oct 2, 11:09am, Richard Jones wrote:
} Subject: Re: FreeBSD TCP stack and RST processing [subj changed]
} Paul Traina <pst@juniper.net> wrote:
} > I put it in there for a reason, Steven's III showed a case where you coul
>>d
} > pummel the box with a barage of, I believe, syn ack's and basicly melt th
>>ings.
} > Sorry my memory is so foggy on the issue now. I'll go back and try to
} > remember.
Steven's III? I don't have that one, since I figured that I already knew
how NNTP worked.
No, it's actually the most interesting, because it goes into a lot of
performance.
} Hmm..but if you barrage the system with SYN ACK's when the system is in a
} listen state, you shouldn't jump into SYN_RECEIVED should you?
Nope. This case is handled earlier:
case TCPS_LISTEN: {
struct mbuf *am;
register struct sockaddr_in *sin;
if (tiflags & TH_RST)
goto drop;
if (tiflags & TH_ACK)
goto dropwithreset;
if ((tiflags & TH_SYN) == 0)
goto drop;
Yep, and the bug is that the two got spammed together after I gutted one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710021653.JAA05848>