netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au
Cc: simon@fire.lp0.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:34:32 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071204.233432.136250076.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071205071607.GA11852@gondor.apana.org.au>

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:16:07 +1100

> Right.  This is definitely bad for protocols without a retransmission
> mechanism.
> 
> However, is the 0 setting ever useful for TCP and in particular, TCP's
> connect(2) call? Perhaps we can just make that one always drop.

TCP has some built-in assumptions about characteristics of
interent links and what constitutes a timeout which is "too long"
and should thus result in a full connection failure.

IPSEC changes this because of IPSEC route resolution via
ISAKMP.

With this in mind I can definitely see people preferring
the "block until IPSEC resolves" behavior, especially for
something like, say, periodic remote backups and stuff like
that where you really want the thing to just sit and wait
for the connect() to succeed instead of failing.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-12-05  7:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-04 18:53 sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23) Simon Arlott
2007-12-05  0:12 ` Herbert Xu
2007-12-05  6:30   ` David Miller
2007-12-05  6:51     ` Herbert Xu
2007-12-05  7:12       ` David Miller
2007-12-05  7:16         ` Herbert Xu
2007-12-05  7:34           ` David Miller [this message]
2007-12-05  7:39             ` Herbert Xu
2007-12-05  9:55               ` David Miller
2007-12-05  9:57                 ` Herbert Xu
2007-12-05 18:42         ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-05 18:39       ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-06  2:25         ` David Miller
2007-12-06  8:49           ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-06  8:53             ` David Miller
2007-12-06 10:56               ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-06 11:13                 ` David Miller
2007-12-06 11:35                   ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-06 11:39                     ` David Miller
2007-12-06 12:30                       ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-06 13:55                         ` David Miller
2007-12-06 14:31                           ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-07  3:20                             ` David Miller
2007-12-07  9:29                               ` Stefan Rompf
2007-12-16 22:47     ` Bill Davidsen
2007-12-16 23:22       ` David Miller
2007-12-05  6:06 ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071204.233432.136250076.davem@davemloft.net \
    --to=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=simon@fire.lp0.eu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).