From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:07:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7C142C.9040707@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201002161625.22495.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:06:26 you wrote:
>> Octavian Purdila wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 11:37:04 you wrote:
>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm) > sizeof(dummy_skb->cb));
>>>>>
>>>>> + sysctl_local_reserved_ports = kzalloc(65536 / 8, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + if (!sysctl_local_reserved_ports)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>> I think we should also consider the ports in ip_local_port_range,
>>>> since we can only reserve the ports in that range.
>>> That is subject to changes at runtime, which means we will have to
>>> readjust the bitmap at runtime which introduces the need for additional
>>> synchronization operations which I would rather avoid.
>> Why? As long as the bitmap is global, this will not be hard.
>>
>
> For the more important point see bellow, but with regard to reallocation, this
> means we need to at least use rcu_read_lock() in the fast path to avoid races
> between freeing the old bitmap and doing a read in progress.
>
> Granted, that is a light operation, but would it makes things so much more
> complicated just so that we save one memory page (assuming the range is the
> default [32000 64000] one).
Why not just allocate the bitmap for all ports? 65535/8 bytes are
needed.
>
>> Consider that if one user writes a port number which is beyond
>> the ip_local_port_range into ip_local_reserved_ports, we should
>> not accept this, because it doesn't make any sense. But with your
>> patch, we do.
>>
>
> I think it should be allowed. I see ip_local_reserved_ports and ip_local_range
> as independent settings that can be change at any time.
According to the original purpose, they are not.
>
> That way I can flag port 8080 even if the current range is [32000, 64000] and
> then later I can expand the range to [1024, 64000] without loosing the 8080
> reservation.
Then its meaning is changed, bind(0) will never have chance to get 8080,
thus reserving 8080 for this purpose fails.
I want to always keep its original meaning, if the local_port_range goes
out, then local_reserved_port should be empty at the same time, you have
to reset it after changing local_port_range.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 22:00 [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Octavian Purdila
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] sysctl: refactor integer handling proc code Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 8:41 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 10:48 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:08 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 14:00 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:31 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 21:09 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-18 3:58 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 11:41 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:09 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 13:44 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:21 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-18 4:25 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 2/3] sysctl: add proc_dobitmap Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 9:12 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-15 22:00 ` [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 9:37 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 11:06 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 13:06 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 13:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-02-17 16:13 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-02-17 16:01 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-20 8:00 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-16 14:25 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 16:07 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2010-02-16 17:25 ` [net-next PATCH v4 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 18:04 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 18:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 19:51 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-16 20:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-16 21:22 ` Octavian Purdila
2010-02-17 15:57 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-17 16:19 ` Cong Wang
2010-02-17 16:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B7C142C.9040707@redhat.com \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=opurdila@ixiacom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).