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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:26:32 -0700
From:   Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To:     Ka-Cheong Poon <ka-cheong.poon@...cle.com>
Cc:     Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, 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

Hi Ka-Cheong,

On 7/6/2018 8:25 AM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (07/06/18 23:08), Ka-Cheong Poon wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> 
> because not every transport may need a port number.
> 
Lets keep separate port for RDMA and TCP transport. This has been
already useful for wireshark dissector and can also help for eBPF
like external tooling. The fragment format and re-assembly is
different across transports.

I do see your point and also agree that port number isn't transport
specific and in case we need to add another transport, what port
to use. But may be till then lets keep the existing behavior.
As such this port switch is not related to IPv6 support as such
so lets deal with it separately.

Regards,
Santosh