Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 07:51 schrieb Herbert Xu:

> > 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?

I'd strongly suggest doing so. AFAIK, behaviour of connect() on nonblocking 
sockets is quite well defined in POSIX. If this is changed for some IP 
sockets, event-driven applications will randomly and subtly break.

Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>

• References:
  • sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
    • From: Simon Arlott <[email protected]>
  • Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
    • From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
• Next by Date: Re: RFC: PNP: do not stop/start devices in suspend/resume path
• Previous by thread: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
• Next by thread: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]