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]

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/