netdev - 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: <20071204.223023.262159049.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:30:23 -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 11:12:32 +1100

> [INET]: Export non-blocking flags to proto connect call
> 
> Previously we made connect(2) block on IPsec SA resolution.  This is
> good in general but not desirable for non-blocking sockets.
> 
> To fix this properly we'd need to implement the larval IPsec dst stuff
> that we talked about.  For now let's just revert to the old behaviour
> on non-blocking sockets.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>

We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.

Non-blocking has a meaning dependant upon the xfrm_larval_drop sysctl
setting, and this is across the board.  If xfrm_larval_drop is zero,
non-blocking semantics do not extend to IPSEC route resolution,
otherwise it does.

If he sets this sysctl to "1" as I detailed in my reply, he'll
get the behavior he wants.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html