From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753706AbXLESmm (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:42:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751964AbXLESmd (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:42:33 -0500 Received: from cg-p07-fb.rzone.de ([81.169.146.215]:20269 "EHLO cg-p07-fb.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750892AbXLESmc (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:42:32 -0500 X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo07 X-RZG-AUTH: kR2YrGeU3i5IZ7e/KoXXySNh16uouyfpvuAE9NRyohxnu02NkfMqoFqI5zXqM8wH From: Stefan Rompf To: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: sockets affected by IPsec always block (2.6.23) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:39:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: David Miller , simon@fire.lp0.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <4755A21F.2020407@simon.arlott.org.uk> <20071204.223023.262159049.davem@davemloft.net> <20071205065132.GA11476@gondor.apana.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20071205065132.GA11476@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200712051939.08384.stefan@loplof.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 07:51 schrieb Herbert Xu: > > 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? I'd strongly suggest doing so. AFAIK, behaviour of connect() on nonblocking sockets is quite well defined in POSIX. If this is changed for some IP sockets, event-driven applications will randomly and subtly break. Stefan