lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
From
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:47:24 -0500

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.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@gondor.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.

I guess "echo '1' >/proc/sys/net/core/xfrm_larval_drop" is not
explicit enough? What more would you like me to say?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-17 00:25    [W:0.646 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site