Re: configurable keepalive setting through libldap?

Ralf Haferkamp wrote: > Am Dienstag 05 Mai 2009 22:48:10 schrieb Howard Chu: > Something like proposed in ITS#5133? It seems that it was rejected with a > reference to the enablement of SO_KEEPALIVE, though. Should we revisit > that? Seems like it, yes.

> I havn't had a good idea yet how to easily fix this case, apart from > leveraging TCP keepalives. > > (According to the docs, SSL_read() would return SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ when > the underlying BIO is non-blocking. But we're using blocking IO. I am > unsure how much effort it would be to port that to non-blocking. I'd > think it's a non- trivial task ;)). I don't think there's any particular dependencies left in our code in this regard; ber_get_next() can be called as many times as necessary to retrieve a complete message. All of our input is triggered by select/poll/etc. What's less clear is how well OpenSSL actually behaves with non-blocking sockets; there are a lot of bug reports on that as I recall. You interested in testing that?

I guess, in the absence of a better solution, go ahead with what you've already worked up. We'll just have to document somewhere (Admin Guide I suppose) that a system's TCP keepalive setting may need to be adjusted if not on Linux...