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  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]
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:12:00 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

From: Herbert Xu <>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:51:32 +1100

> Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
> the default became 1?

I bet there are UDP apps out there that would break if we
didn't do this.

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? :-)

As much as I even personally prefer the xfrm_larval_drop=1
behavior, it cases like above that keep me from jumping at
making it the default.

Arguably, potentially blocking forever (which is what can easily
happen with xfrm_larval_drop=0 if your IPSEC daemon cannot resolve the
IPSEC path for whatever reason) is worse than the above, but the
other cases are still something to consider as well.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists