Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20071204.223023.262159049.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)
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071205001230.GA11391@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <4755A21F.2020407@simon.arlott.org.uk>
	<20071205001230.GA11391@gondor.apana.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1131
Lines: 28

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.
--
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/