netdev - Re: Is 64k bind patch making bad assumption?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:46:25 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is 64k bind patch making bad assumption?

Hi Stephen.

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@...tta.com) wrote:
> The patch to allow more that 64k connections is assuming that
> all IP addresses on a machine have the same connectivity and policy.
> I can think of several cases where this is not true:
>   1. Server machine with public IP's for connections and private IP's
>      for backend database connection
>   2. Applications where certain IP's are required for security
>      protocols
>   3. Machines doing policy based routing
> 
> Doesn't this patch change/break this?

I do not think this is related. Patch itself just allows to do what
users ask for. He can do the same with explicit port selection and
reuse option, but bind(0) with the reuse option (i.e. automatic
kernel port selection) was limited.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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