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  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 23:34:32 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
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)

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:16:07 +1100

> Right.  This is definitely bad for protocols without a retransmission
> mechanism.
> 
> 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.

TCP has some built-in assumptions about characteristics of
interent links and what constitutes a timeout which is "too long"
and should thus result in a full connection failure.

IPSEC changes this because of IPSEC route resolution via
ISAKMP.

With this in mind I can definitely see people preferring
the "block until IPSEC resolves" behavior, especially for
something like, say, periodic remote backups and stuff like
that where you really want the thing to just sit and wait
for the connect() to succeed instead of failing.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists