From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90BFC433F5 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241172AbiBKJKY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 04:10:24 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:54478 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236211AbiBKJKY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 04:10:24 -0500 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org (ganesha.gnumonks.org [IPv6:2001:780:45:1d:225:90ff:fe52:c662]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 247C5B53 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from uucp by ganesha.gnumonks.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nIRwK-00GkDp-Ov; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:10:04 +0100 Received: from laforge by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nIRqq-004xbL-9i; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:04:24 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:04:24 +0100 From: Harald Welte To: "Drewek, Wojciech" Cc: Marcin Szycik , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "pablo@netfilter.org" , "osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 1/5] gtp: Allow to create GTP device without FDs Message-ID: References: <20220127163749.374283-1-marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com> <20220127163900.374645-1-marcin.szycik@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Wojciech, On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:30:32PM +0000, Drewek, Wojciech wrote: > For now we don't have such tree. I will see what we can do. I would appreciate it, so we can get this tested before it hits net-next. > > I'm wondering if we should make this more explicit, i.e. rather than > > implicitly creating the kernel socket automagically, make this mode > > explicit upon request by some netlink attribute. > > I agree, it would look cleaner. Excellent. > > > Sockets are created with the > > > commonly known UDP ports used for GTP protocol (GTP0_PORT and > > > GTP1U_PORT). > > > > I'm wondering if there are use cases that need to operate on > > non-standard ports. The current module can be used that way (as the > > socket is created in user space). If the "kernel socket mode" was > > requested explicitly via netlink attribute, one could just as well > > pass along the port number[s] this way. > > Yes, it is possible to create socket with any port number using FD approach, > but gtp module still assumes that ports are 2152 and 3386 at least in tx path > (see gtp_push_header). Implementing this shouldn't be hard but is it crucial? Not crucial. -- - Harald Welte http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)