Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

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.

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/