On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 10:25:30PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> This is an approximation, as enabling SO_KEEPALIVE doesn't mean that
> a keep-alive segment will be sent right away, rather that keep-alive
> segments will start being sent if the connection is idle.
> 
> On the other hand, we don't have direct control over the host-side
> TCP, so this is probably the best approximation we can get.
> 
> By default, namespaces inherit keep-alive parameters from their parent
> namespace, so we can assume that, in case of a container, we'll wait
> for the same interval it took for the container to start sending us
> keep-alives, effectively doubling that interval.
> 
> To keep this simple, set SO_KEEPALIVE whenever we see a keep-alive
> segment, instead of tracking its state. Keep-alive segments are
> relatively infrequent, so we don't expect any substantial cost from
> doing that.

Makes sense to me.

> 
> Reported-by: Dominic Kohls <Dominic.Wenzler@rewe-group.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

> ---
>  tcp.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c
> index 8357c0e..c5486bc 100644
> --- a/tcp.c
> +++ b/tcp.c
> @@ -1838,6 +1838,9 @@ static int tcp_data_from_tap(const struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn,
>  			tcp_send_flag(c, conn, ACK);
>  			tcp_timer_ctl(c, conn);
>  
> +			setsockopt(conn->sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_KEEPALIVE,
> +				   &((int){ 1 }), sizeof(int));
> +
>  			if (p->count == 1) {
>  				tcp_tap_window_update(c, conn,
>  						      ntohs(th->window));
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson