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:	Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:16:07 +1100
From:	Herbert Xu <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:12:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

Right.  This is definitely bad for protocols without a retransmission

However, is the 0 setting ever useful for TCP and in particular, TCP's
connect(2) call? Perhaps we can just make that one always drop.

Well, until someone implements queueing to fix all of this properly
that is :)

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:
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