From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:15 +0800 Message-ID: <4B976503.4050702@redhat.com> References: <1267233952-5856-1-git-send-email-opurdila@ixiacom.com> <20100227.033230.196838696.davem@davemloft.net> <4B8F6FF0.5000306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , opurdila@ixiacom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58711 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751142Ab0CJJTr (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:19:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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?