Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:51:32 +1100
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:30:23PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
We made an explicit decision not to do things this way.
Thanks for pointing this out.
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.
Does anybody actually need the 0 setting? What would we break if
the default became 1?
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: Stefan Rompf
- Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: David Miller
- Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- References:
- sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: Simon Arlott
- Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: Herbert Xu
- Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- From: David Miller
- sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Timers SMP] can this machine be helped?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
- Previous by thread: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- Next by thread: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|