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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:54:15 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <>
To:	Ben Hutchings <>
CC:	Trond Myklebust <>,, Linux kernel <>
Subject: Re: sunrpc port allocation and IANA reserved list

On 11/10/2009 03:32 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:

> I'm sure we could afford 128 bytes for a blacklist of privileged ports.
> However, the problem is that there is no API for userland to request
> 'any free privileged port' - it has to just try binding to different
> ports until it finds one available.  This means that the kernel can't
> tell whether a process is trying to allocate a specifically assigned
> port or whether the blacklist should be applied.

That's unfortunate.  Maybe a bindresvport syscall would make sense, but
that's starting to get bloated.  At least for userspace apps netstat
will show who the owner is and it might be possible to clean it up
without rebooting.

For the ports allocated in the kernel via xs_get_random_port() and
xprt_bindresvport() it would be fairly easy to check a blacklist.

Interestingly, the current kernel range starts at 665 because IPMI is
known to use 664.  The current glibc range to be tried in bindresvport()
starts at 600, which seems to be a bug waiting to happen.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists