From: Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:47:24 -0500
> David Miller wrote: > > From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 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. I guess "echo '1' >/proc/sys/net/core/xfrm_larval_drop" is not explicit enough? What more would you like me to say? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html