netdev - Re: [RFC Patch] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:12:48 +0200
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 06:30:07 you wrote:

> This patch introduces /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports,
> it can be used like ip_local_port_range, but this is used to
> reserve ports for third-party applications which use fixed
> port numbers within ip_local_port_range.
> 
> This only affects the applications which call socket functions
> like bind(2) with port number 0, to prevent the kernel getting the ports
> within the specified range for them. For applications which use fixed
> port number, it will have no effects.

It also affects the case where applications do connect, without previously 
doing bind, right?

> 
> Any comments are welcome.

I think it might be useful to allow setting individual ports as reserved, not 
only ranges, for example by using a bitmap. 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html