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