Re: http fproxy ports are not closed

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:40:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 02 Sep 2011 13:20:39 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 00:23:00 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:02:14 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:44:17 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > > > > netstat (netstat -pnat | grep java) shows 213 connections to
> > > > > my fproxy at 127.0.0.1:8888, in a "CLOSE_WAIT" state. I only
> > > > > noticed this after I could no longer access fproxy --
> > > > > probably because of some thread or connection limit. I'm not
> > > > > exactly sure how to reproduce this -- it's not simply a
> > > > > matter of opening a connection to fproxy.
> > > > 
> > > > False alarm. I think my freenet wget spider got out of control.
> > > > Apologies.
> > > 
> > > Upon further consideration, I think it might actually be a bug.
> > > For one thing, this never happened with earlier pre-1401ish
> > > versions. For another thing, why are there so many sockets open,
> > > when my wget client has long since closed and exited? (it has
> > > been about half an hour now
> > > -- I'll provide updates if they ever do close.) CLOSE_WAIT
> > > apparently means fproxy got the FIN signal from my wget, but
> > > didn't close it's end?
> > > 
> > > I'm still not sure exactly how this bizarre behavior (of not
> > > closing sockets) starts -- because if I restart freenet, and do a
> > > simple wget transaction, the socket does get properly closed.
> > 
> > All those "HTTP socket handlers" are still open and consuming
> > freenet threads. They were initiated by "wget
> > localhost:8888/USK..." type calls
> > -- and they probably failed because the sites were old. Normal
> > browser access to control localhost:8888 does still close the
> > socket properly.
> 
> Well what are they doing then? Still running the requests? This is a
> fundamental problem with fetching stuff over HTTP from Freenet with a
> low timeout - if your tool moves on to add more requests, the old
> requests haven't failed, they are still going.

They will go on forever? Fproxy will never close them? (Sounds pretty
easy to DDOS that?) And why didn't this happen before?

> Having said that it may eventually be possible to detect connection
> closed - in 0.5 there was a hack for it.

I think tcp's CLOSE_WAIT means fproxy should have already gotten a
"close" signal, no?
_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[email protected]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-request-RdDMkVZAZeuJnvDnx1genB2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe