[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.

Thanks for pointing this out.

> 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.

Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
the default became 1?

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-05 07:55    [W:0.100 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site