Re: [PATCH] Fix xprt_bindresvport

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

Olaf Kirch wrote:
> 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.
Understood... but ports > 1023 are not considered privileged and
connections that are not using privilege ports will not be accepted
by a number of RPC daemon..

> 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.
If such an environment exists, then I agree... but I don't think this
is the norm... I'm pretty sure a lot of RPC daemons check for
privileged port by default... Something I don't think admits can
turn off...

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of being able to define
the range of privileged ports the kernel can use (I think it will be
very handy), but by definition a privileged port is between 1 and 1023
and by setting the max port to 1023 we would be maintaining that
definition...

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