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: <20071205.015558.224988608.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:55:58 -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 18:39:27 +1100

> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 11:34:32PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm, but connect(2) should succeed in that case thanks to the
> blackhole route, no? The subsequent SYNs will then be dropped
> until the IPsec SAs are in place.

If it hits sysctl_tcp_syn_retries SYN attempts, the connect will hard
fail.

--
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