From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD7Gw-0008Fi-5C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:11:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CD7Gu-0008El-VL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:11:25 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CD7Gt-0008Ef-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:11:24 -0400 Received: from [62.4.22.179] (helo=mail.bbrox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CD7AG-0004dv-WC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:04:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:04:31 +0200 From: Lionel Ulmer Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Feature request: option to disable protection in user mode networking Message-ID: <20040930220431.A6196@bbland> References: <1096346193.6787.2.camel@station6.example.com> <20040930092541.A692@bbland> <1096574231.10584.10.camel@aragorn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1096574231.10584.10.camel@aragorn>; from jhoger@pobox.com on Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:57:11PM -0700 Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:57:11PM -0700, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > Why would you consider a "forward-all" option to be a DoS? Because, as you explain later in your mail 'slirp [...] has to create a listening socket [...] on every port.' which means that you won't be able to start any application on the box which needs to listen to a port. I agree that 'DoS' is maybe too big a word as 'listening' applications are rare, but well, it would still be a pain in the ass to have all 65535 available ports taken by one application. Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/