netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] inet: add IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO

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: <CADVnQy=qbyTUdCPvDv8UbcuXJAsNhQVSiJCo83e9k8s8OWOF8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 6 Jun 2015 22:30:07 -0400
From:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] inet: add IP_BIND_ADDRESS_NO_PORT to overcome
 bind(0) limitations

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
...
> This patch adds a new SOL_IP socket option, asking kernel to ignore
> the 0 port provided by application in bind(IP, port=0) and only
> remember the given IP address.
...
> This new feature is available for both IPv4 and IPv6.

I like this a lot. This addresses a very serious gap in the sockets
API, and should be very useful. The comment mentions that this is
available for IPv6. From skimming the change I would have expected
inet6_bind() would need a change analogous to the change in
inet_bind()? Was there a missing "git add", or is a change to
inet6_bind() somehow not needed?

Thanks!

neal
--
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