From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755208Ab0EJD57 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2010 23:57:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38443 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751765Ab0EJD54 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2010 23:57:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4BE7851D.2090304@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:01:33 +0800 From: Cong Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Shredder/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Amerigo Wang CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Octavian Purdila , ebiederm@xmission.com, Eric Dumazet , penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , xiaosuo@gmail.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, David Miller , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Patch v10 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers References: <20100505103033.5600.77502.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20100505103033.5600.77502.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Adding Andrew into Cc, hope can hear from him.) On 05/05/10 18:26, Amerigo Wang wrote: > Changes from the previous version: > - Use 'true' and 'false' for bool's; > - Fix some coding style problems; > - Allow appending lines to bitmap proc file so that it will be > easier to add new bits. > > ------------------> > > This patch introduces /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports which > allows users to reserve ports for third-party applications. > > The reserved ports will not be used by automatic port assignments > (e.g. when calling connect() or bind() with port number 0). Explicit > port allocation behavior is unchanged. > > There are still some miss behaviors with regard to proc parsing in odd > invalid cases (for "40000\0-40001" all is acknowledged but only 40000 > is accepted) but they are not easy to fix without changing the current > "acknowledge how much we accepted" behavior. > > Because of that and because the same issues are present in the > existing proc_dointvec code as well I don't think its worth holding > the actual feature (port reservation) after such petty error recovery > issues. > >