[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoBO9Y1+aX6hrt5cG_2V2WOXNvEJ58G8pBw2Nt9+VV3pnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 17:22:44 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
kernelxing@...cent.com, kuba@...nel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: change source port selection at bind() time
Hello Kuniyuki,
[...]
> > To be more concise, I would like to state 3 points to see if they are valid:
> > (1) Extending the option for bind() is the last puzzle of using an
> > older algorithm for some users. Since we have one in connect(), how
> > about adding it in bind() to provide for the people favouring the
> > older algorithm.
>
> Why do they want to use bind() to pick a random port in the first place ?
>
I feel sorry to bother you again.
Interesting thing is that I just found some of my personal records
that show to me: a lot of applications start active connections using
bind() to find a proper port in Google :) I'm not the only one :p
Probably coming up with the new algo selecting odd/even ports is the
reason/compromise for the bind() and non-bind() users. It gave range/2
for active flow using bind().
That's what I want to share with you :) Hope it will waste you and
Eric precious time :)
In my opinion, whatever the result is, technical communication is
important which can help the community grow. No hard feelings :)
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists