Re: [net-next PATCH v6 0/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers

[Octavian Purdila]

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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/