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: <20071204.220634.112782343.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:06:34 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	simon@...e.lp0.eu
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

From: Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:53:19 +0000

> If I have a IPsec rule like:
> 	spdadd 192.168.7.8 1.2.3.4 any -P out ipsec esp/transport//require;
> (i.e. a remote host 1.2.3.4 which will not respond)
> 
> Then any attempt to communicate with 1.2.3.4 will block, even when using non-blocking sockets:

If you don't like this behavior:

	echo "1" >/proc/sys/net/core/xfrm_larval_drop

but those initial connection setup packets will be dropped while
waiting for the IPSEC route to be resolved, and in your 8 hour case
the TCP connect will fail.

Anyways, the choice for different behavior is there, select it
to suit your tastes.
--
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/