From: Stefan Rompf <stefan@loplof.de>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:35:05 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, simon@fire.lp0.eu,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <200712060949.02524.stefan@loplof.de> <200712061156.48810.stefan@loplof.de> <20071206.031302.201608796.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071206.031302.201608796.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200712061235.06025.stefan@loplof.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 753
Lines: 17

Am Donnerstag, 6. Dezember 2007 12:13 schrieb David Miller:

> And that's why this is a grey area.  Why is waiting for memory
> allocation on a O_NONBLOCK socket OK but waiting for IPSEC route
> resolution is not?

Because you just will put enough RAM modules into you server when setting up a 
scalable system. Local resource, managable by the admin. What you cannot 
control in many cases is the network connection to the remote node. Simon 
Arlott has been talking about an 8 hour network outage.

Stefan
--
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/