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  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:	Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:47:24 -0500
From:	Bill Davidsen <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

David Miller wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <>
> 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 <>
> 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 <>
   "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
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists