[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B976503.4050702@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:15 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, opurdila@...acom.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nhorman@...driver.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using
fixed port numbers
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I would add the restriction that the values in the list of ranges
> always must be increasing, and in general restrict the set of accepted
> values as much as possible. If we don't accept it now we don't have
> to worry about some userspace application relying on some unitended
> side effect a few years into the future.
I don't think this is good.
Suppose that when I just want to add one port into the list and keep the
original ones, I want to do this:
orig=$(cat ip_local_reserved_ports)
new_list="$orig, $new_one"
echo "$new_list" > ip_local_reserved_ports
If we add this restriction, the above could be failed if the new port
is lower than the original ones. This will be not convenient.
>
>
> I think it is a serious bug that you clear the destination bitmap
> in the middle of parsing it. That will either open or close all
> ports in the middle of parsing, and I can't see how that would
> ever be a good thing.
>
Agreed.
By the way, Octavian, any new updates?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists