netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] rds: Changing IP address internal representation to struct in6

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:08:04 +0800
From:   Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>
To:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, rds-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] rds: Changing IP address internal
 representation to struct in6_addr

On 07/06/2018 06:15 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (07/06/18 17:08), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:
>>> Hmm. Why do you need to include tcp header in ib transport
>>> code ? If there is any common function just move to core
>>> common file and use it.
>>
>> I think it can be removed as it is left over from earlier
>> changes when the IB IPv6 listener port was RDS_TCP_PORT.
>> Now all the port definitions are in rds.h.
> 
> Transport specific information such as port numbers should not
> be smeared into the common rds-module.  Please fix that.
> 
> If IB is also piggybacking on port 16385 (why?), please use your
> own definitions for it in IB specific header files.


As mentioned in a previous mail, it is unclear why the
port number is transport specific.  Most Internet services
use the same port number running over TCP/UDP as shown
in the IANA database.  And the IANA RDS registration is
the same.  What is the rationale of having a transport
specific number in the RDS implementation?


-- 
K. Poon
ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com