From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Octavian Purdila Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:42:47 +0200 Message-ID: <201003101442.47192.opurdila@ixiacom.com> References: <1267233952-5856-1-git-send-email-opurdila@ixiacom.com> <4B976503.4050702@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: Cong Wang Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4B976503.4050702@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 10 March 2010 11:23:15 you wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I would add the restriction that the values in the list of ranges > > always must be increasing, and in general restrict the set of accepted > > values as much as possible. If we don't accept it now we don't have > > to worry about some userspace application relying on some unitended > > side effect a few years into the future. > > I don't think this is good. > > Suppose that when I just want to add one port into the list and keep the > original ones, I want to do this: > > orig=$(cat ip_local_reserved_ports) > new_list="$orig, $new_one" > echo "$new_list" > ip_local_reserved_ports > > If we add this restriction, the above could be failed if the new port > is lower than the original ones. This will be not convenient. > > > I think it is a serious bug that you clear the destination bitmap > > in the middle of parsing it. That will either open or close all > > ports in the middle of parsing, and I can't see how that would > > ever be a good thing. > > Agreed. > > By the way, Octavian, any new updates? > Sorry, didn't got time to work on this lately, but I will submit a new version I hope end of this week to address Eric's comments.