[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4765AAFC.3040406@tmr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:47:24 -0500
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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)
David Miller wrote:
> 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.
>
I think you for the hint, but I would hardly call this sentence
"detailed" in terms of being a cookbook solution to the problem.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists