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: <20071205.182500.166603251.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:00 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	stefan@...lof.de
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, 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: Stefan Rompf <stefan@...lof.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:39:07 +0100

> I'd strongly suggest doing so. AFAIK, behaviour of connect() on nonblocking 
> sockets is quite well defined in POSIX.

You are entitled to your opinion.

POSIX says nothing about the semantics of route resolution.
Non-blocking doesn't mean "cannot sleep no matter what".

> If this is changed for some IP sockets, event-driven applications
> will randomly and subtly break.

If this was such a clear cut case we'd have changed things
a long time ago, but it isn't so don't pretend this is the
case.
--
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/