netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] 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:	Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:15:28 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using
 fixed port numbers

Octavian Purdila wrote:
> This patch introduces /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports which
> allows users to reserve ports for third-party applications.
> 
> The reserved ports will not be used by automatic port assignments
> (e.g. when calling connect() or bind() with port number 0). Explicit
> port allocation behavior is unchanged.
> 
> Changes from the previous version:
> - be more strict on accepted input (only comma separators, no spaces allowed)
> - add to the docs a paragraph about ip_local_port_range and
>   ip_local_reserved_ports relationship
> - fix a few corner cases with parsing
> 


Thanks for keeping working on this!

Then this version should be fine now.


> There are still some miss behaviors with regard to proc parsing in odd
> invalid cases (for "40000\0-40001" all is acknowledged but only 40000
> is accepted) but they are not easy to fix without changing the current
> "acknowledge how much we accepted" behavior.


I think this is the right behavior.

> 
> Because of that and because the same issues are present in the
> existing proc_dointvec code as well I don't think its worth holding
> the actual feature (port reservation) after such petty error recovery
> issues.
> 
> For the sake of discussion, I think Eric was right: the model we are
> using is messy, we should only accept all input or none. If we can
> (ABI implications) and you think its worth switching to this model I
> can give it a try in a future patch.
> 


Well, this depends, for things like "40000b", we should reject it,
since it is invalid, for "40000\0-40001", I think returning 5 is alright.

Thanks.
--
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