linux-kernel - Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200712051942.32264.stefan@loplof.de>
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:42:31 +0100
From:	Stefan Rompf <stefan@...lof.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, simon@...e.lp0.eu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 08:12 schrieb David Miller:

> Actually, consider even a case like DNS.  Let's say the timeout
> is set to 2 seconds or something and you have 3 DNS servers
> listed, on different IPSEC destinations, in your resolv.conf
>
> Each IPSEC route that isn't currently resolved will cause packet loss
> of the DNS lookup request with xfrm_larval_drop set to '1'.
>
> If all 3 need to be resolved, the DNS lookup will fully fail
> which defeats the purpose of listing 3 servers for redundancy
> don't you think? :-)

In your example, the DNS server might actually stop responding to other 
clients while waiting for the (expected to be non-blocking) connect() to 
return. This is much much worse.

Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/