Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

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?
--
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/