Re: [PATCH] Fix xprt_bindresvport

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

Olaf Kirch wrote:
>
>  #endif /* _LINUX_SUNRPC_XPRT_H */
> Index: linux-2.6.10/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.10.orig/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c	2005-02-23 17:17:55.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.10/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c	2005-02-23 17:19:35.000000000 +0100
> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ unsigned int	nfs_debug;
>  unsigned int	nfsd_debug;
>  unsigned int	nlm_debug;
>  
> +unsigned int	xprt_min_resvport = 650;
> +unsigned int	xprt_max_resvport = 1023;
> +
> +
>  #ifdef RPC_DEBUG
>  
>  static struct ctl_table_header *sunrpc_table_header;
> @@ -121,6 +125,8 @@ done:
>  
>  static unsigned int min_slot_table_size = RPC_MIN_SLOT_TABLE;
>  static unsigned int max_slot_table_size = RPC_MAX_SLOT_TABLE;
> +static unsigned int xprt_min_resvport_limit = 1;
> +static unsigned int xprt_max_resvport_limit = 65535;
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?

steved.



-------------------------------------------------------
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