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: <20071205065132.GA11476@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:51:32 +1100
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	simon@...e.lp0.eu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.

Thanks for pointing this out.

> Non-blocking has a meaning dependant upon the xfrm_larval_drop sysctl
> setting, and this is across the board.  If xfrm_larval_drop is zero,
> non-blocking semantics do not extend to IPSEC route resolution,
> otherwise it does.
> 
> 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?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/