netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH] tcp/dccp: replace using only even ports with all ports

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

Message-ID: <CANn89i+8Fn74WWjVvxnPo154JRie69p1Tz+imOUMnrnoRVmoDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 09:32:29 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: xiaolinkui <xiaolinkui@....com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...inos.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] tcp/dccp: replace using only even ports with all ports

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 9:07 AM xiaolinkui <xiaolinkui@....com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your reply．
>
> At 2024-07-22 21:50:39, "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:41 AM <xiaolinkui@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...inos.com>
> >>
> >> In commit 207184853dbd ("tcp/dccp: change source port selection at connect()
> >> time"), the purpose is to address the issue of increased costs when all even
> >> ports are in use.
> >>
> >> But in my testing environment, this more cost issue has not been resolved.
> >
> >You missed the whole point of 1580ab63fc9a ("tcp/dccp: better use of
> >ephemeral ports in connect()")
> >
> >Have you read 207184853dbd ("tcp/dccp: change source port selection at
> >connect() ..." changelog and are you using IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE ?
>
> There seems to be some difference between IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE
> and "sysctl net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range".We can use the following system
> calls at the user layer to use IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE:
> setsockopt(sockfd, IPPROTO_IP, IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE, &opt, sizeof(opt));
>
> But user behavior is uncontrollable．Is there any other way to use IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE？

If user behavior can not be changed, this is on their end.

Sorry, we won't accept a patch going to the terrible situation we had
before, where applications would fail completely in many cases.