linux-kernel - 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]

Message-Id: <20100204.094110.64247447.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:41:10 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	opurdila@...acom.com
Cc:	amwang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...driver.com,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed
 port numbers

From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:44:01 +0200

> My concern is that we can have multiple applications that require a
> fixed port and if those ports are significantly apart we will
> decrease the port range available for connect. And that will hurt
> the rate of which new connections can be opened.

I'm already uneasy about adding the simple check every time
we loop around in the bind port allocator.

Adding an LSM hook to this spot?  I absolutely refuse to allow
that, it will completely kill bind performance.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/