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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <200712051939.08384.stefan@loplof.de>
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:39:07 +0100
From:	Stefan Rompf <stefan@...lof.de>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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 07:51 schrieb Herbert Xu:

> > If he sets this sysctl to "1" as I detailed in my reply, he'll
> > get the behavior he wants.
>
> Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
> the default became 1?

I'd strongly suggest doing so. AFAIK, behaviour of connect() on nonblocking 
sockets is quite well defined in POSIX. If this is changed for some IP 
sockets, event-driven applications will randomly and subtly break.

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/