From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:07:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7C142C.9040707@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201002161625.22495.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:06:26 you wrote:
>> Octavian Purdila wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 11:37:04 you wrote:
>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm) > sizeof(dummy_skb->cb));
>>>>>
>>>>> + sysctl_local_reserved_ports = kzalloc(65536 / 8, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + if (!sysctl_local_reserved_ports)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>> I think we should also consider the ports in ip_local_port_range,
>>>> since we can only reserve the ports in that range.
>>> That is subject to changes at runtime, which means we will have to
>>> readjust the bitmap at runtime which introduces the need for additional
>>> synchronization operations which I would rather avoid.
>> Why? As long as the bitmap is global, this will not be hard.
>>
>
> For the more important point see bellow, but with regard to reallocation, this
> means we need to at least use rcu_read_lock() in the fast path to avoid races
> between freeing the old bitmap and doing a read in progress.
>
> Granted, that is a light operation, but would it makes things so much more
> complicated just so that we save one memory page (assuming the range is the
> default [32000 64000] one).
Why not just allocate the bitmap for all ports? 65535/8 bytes are
needed.
>
>> Consider that if one user writes a port number which is beyond
>> the ip_local_port_range into ip_local_reserved_ports, we should
>> not accept this, because it doesn't make any sense. But with your
>> patch, we do.
>>
>
> I think it should be allowed. I see ip_local_reserved_ports and ip_local_range
> as independent settings that can be change at any time.
According to the original purpose, they are not.
>
> That way I can flag port 8080 even if the current range is [32000, 64000] and
> then later I can expand the range to [1024, 64000] without loosing the 8080
> reservation.
Then its meaning is changed, bind(0) will never have chance to get 8080,
thus reserving 8080 for this purpose fails.
I want to always keep its original meaning, if the local_port_range goes
out, then local_reserved_port should be empty at the same time, you have
to reset it after changing local_port_range.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 22:00 [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Octavian Purdila
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] sysctl: refactor integer handling proc code Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 8:41 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 10:48 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:08 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 14:00 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:31 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 21:09 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-18 3:58 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 11:41 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:09 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 13:44 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:21 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-18 4:25 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 2/3] sysctl: add proc_dobitmap Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 9:12 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 9:37 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 11:06 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:06 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 13:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-02-17 16:13 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-02-17 16:01 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-20 8:00 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 14:25 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:07 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2010-02-16 17:25 ` [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 18:04 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 18:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 19:51 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 20:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 21:22 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 15:57 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-17 16:19 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B7C142C.9040707@redhat.com \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.