Re: [PATCH] Fix xprt_bindresvport

[Olaf Kirch <okir@suse.de>]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:00:11PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Question, why is 65535 one being used here instead of something
> like 1023 (or PROT_SOCK-1)? Since since inet_bind() will only
> succeed with a source ports that are less than PROT_SOCK, so it
> may not make sense to allow the user to set the max reserver port
> to a value greater than PROT_SOCK-1, true?

I don't understand. Of course you can bind to any socket up to 65535,
not just 1023.
And in an environment where the admin doesn't care for privileged
vs unprivileged ports, it's good to give him the choice of allowing
the kernel to bind to any port.

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Kirch   |  --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
okir@suse.de |    / | \   sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs