From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 30 08:47:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3391065673 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 08:47:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:300::86e2:510b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E7D88FC2A for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 08:47:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie ([134.226.81.10] helo=walton.maths.tcd.ie) by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 30 May 2008 09:47:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:47:24 +0100 From: David Malone To: Peter Jeremy Message-ID: <20080530084724.GA37672@walton.maths.tcd.ie> References: <483EA513.4070409@earthlink.net> <96AFE8D3-7EAC-4A4A-8EFF-35A5DCEC6426@inoc.net> <483EAED1.2050404@FreeBSD.org> <200805291912.m4TJCG56025525@apollo.backplane.com> <14DA211A-A9C5-483A-8CB9-886E5B19A840@inoc.net> <200805291930.m4TJUeGX025815@apollo.backplane.com> <0C827F66-09CE-476D-86E9-146AB255926B@inoc.net> <200805292132.m4TLWhCv026720@apollo.backplane.com> <20080530081143.GI1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080530081143.GI1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Robert Blayzor Subject: Re: Sockets stuck in FIN_WAIT_1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:47:28 -0000 On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 06:11:43PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > A real solution would require more thought. I suspect you need a > mechanism similar to the keepalive timer that starts when there is > data queued and is reset when (some) data is sent - this would catch > your situation but I'm not sure if it's a general solution. I'm not > sure if one of the existing TCP timers could be (ab)used to achieve > this. There has been some talk about this sort of problem on the IETF TCP Maintainers list. I don't think any good conclusion was reached - whatever the solution was certainly needs to be tunable per-socket because this behaviour is perfectly valid in some situations but a bit of a pain in others. David.