1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
|
Network Working Group W. Naylor
Request for Comments #143 J. Wong
NIC #6728 C. Kline
Categories: D.1, D.3 J. Postel
Obsoletes: None UCLA - NMC
Updates: 123, 145 3 May 1971
Regarding Proferred Official ICP
We should like to comment on a race condition discovered in the ICP as
proposed in NWG/RFC #123. The problem arises when the server attempts
to initiate a second connection to the user's receive socket and the
first connection is not yet closed. Using a similar notation to that of
NWG/RFC #123 the following table illustrates the sequence of events in
the proferred and proposed ICP. The last two columns indicate which
actions must be completed before the current action may be initiated.
User and Server are third level programs, and UNCP and SNCP are the
users NCP and Servers NCP respectively. Allocates have not been
included since they add nothing to the argument.
Required Predecessors
---------------------
Reference # Action Initiator "Proferred" Proposed
----------- ------ --------- ----------- --------
1 Listen(L,32) Server -- --
2 Init(U,L,32) User -- --
3 RTS(U,L,'l') UNCP 2 2
4 STR(L,U,32) SNCP 1 and 3 1 and 3
5 Send(L,S) Server 4 4
6 SEND('l',S) SNCP 5 5
7 RECEIVE('l',S) UNCP 6 6
8 Receive(U,S) User 7 7
9 Close(L) Server 5 5
10 CLS(L,U) SNCP 9 and 7 9 and 7
11 Close(U) User 8 not used
12 CLS(U,L) UNCP 11 10
[Page 1]
^L
NWG Regarding Proferred Official ICP RFC 143
Required Predecessors
---------------------
Reference # Action Initiator "Proferred" Proposed
----------- ------ --------- ----------- --------
13 Init(S,U+1,B ) Server 9 9
u
14 RTS(S,U+1,'l' ) SNCP 13 13
2
15 Init(S+1,U,B ) Server 13 14 and 18
s
16 STR(S+1,U,B ) SNCP 15 15
s
17 Init(U+1,S,B ) User 11 12
u
18 STR(U+1,S,B ) UNCP 17 17
u
19 Init(U,S+1,B ) User 17 17
s
20 RTS(U,S+1,'l' ) UNCP 19 19
3
Note that in the Proferred Order column, 16 can occur before 12 in which
case UNCP would find socket U in use and probably return a CLS (U,S+1).
The Server would probably then assume the User was finished with the
conversation.
The above problem is resolved by eliminating the Close from one side and
causing that side to wait for the CLS from the other side before doing
an Init. We propose that eliminating the user's Close (U) is the best
solution. (The user NCP must of course return a CLS in response to the
CLS sent by the server NCP).
The Server's Close (L) leads more quickly to the reuse of socket L thus
the serving of another user.
[Page 2]
^L
NWG Regarding Proferred Official ICP RFC 143
To clarify the above discussion which may seem confusing at first
glance, let us demonstrate the problem in the language of RFC #123.
Server User
------ ----
(S1) Listen(L,32) (U1) Init(U,L,32)
(S2) [Wait for match] (U2)
(S3) Send(L,S) (U3) Receive(U,S)
(S4) Close(L) (U4) Close(U)
(S5) Init(S,U+1,B ) (U5) Init(U+1,S,B )
u u
(S6) Init(S+1,U,B ) (U6) Init(U,S+1,B )
s s
Notice that since server and user are independent (probably in different
hosts), server could execute (S6) before user executes (U4) and could
receive an error back from user's NCP that socket U is busy. Similarly,
user could execute (U6) before server executes (S4) and could receive an
error back from his own NCP that socket U is not yet closed (assuming an
implementation where sockets are kept busy until a CLS match).
Various modifications could be made to ICP to solve this problem. We
propose the following ICP:
[Page 3]
^L
NWG Regarding Proferred Official ICP RFC 143
Server User
------ ----
Listen(L,32) Init(U,L,32)
[Wait for match]
Send(L,S) Receive(U,S)
Close(L) [Wait for CLS]
Init(S,U+1,B ) Init(U+1,S,B )
u u
[Wait for match] Init(U,S+1,B )
s
Init(S+1,U,B )
s
This ICP assumes the following:
1. The user can inquire or is notified of the fact that one of his
connections has been closed.
2. The server can inquire or is notified that a connection for which
he has done an Init (or Listen) is now open.
Both of the above seem basic to any NCP - user interface.
This race condition problem would not exist had the dynamic reconnection
features of RFC #36 been included in the NCP protocol and had dynamic
reconnection been used in this ICP.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Walter Pienciak 1/98 ]
[Page 4]
^L
|
