From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xprt_bindresvport Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:00:11 -0400 Message-ID: <42D68C0B.9000106@RedHat.com> References: <20050711092556.GD27163@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Dt68X-0006Ls-5V for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:00:33 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1Dt68S-0002md-KX for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:00:30 -0700 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20050711092556.GD27163@suse.de> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Olaf Kirch wrote: > > #endif /* _LINUX_SUNRPC_XPRT_H */ > Index: linux-2.6.10/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.10.orig/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c 2005-02-23 17:17:55.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6.10/net/sunrpc/sysctl.c 2005-02-23 17:19:35.000000000 +0100 > @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ unsigned int nfs_debug; > unsigned int nfsd_debug; > unsigned int nlm_debug; > > +unsigned int xprt_min_resvport = 650; > +unsigned int xprt_max_resvport = 1023; > + > + > #ifdef RPC_DEBUG > > static struct ctl_table_header *sunrpc_table_header; > @@ -121,6 +125,8 @@ done: > > static unsigned int min_slot_table_size = RPC_MIN_SLOT_TABLE; > static unsigned int max_slot_table_size = RPC_MAX_SLOT_TABLE; > +static unsigned int xprt_min_resvport_limit = 1; > +static unsigned int xprt_max_resvport_limit = 65535; Question, why is 65535 one being used here instead of something like 1023 (or PROT_SOCK-1)? Since since inet_bind() will only succeed with a source ports that are less than PROT_SOCK, so it may not make sense to allow the user to set the max reserver port to a value greater than PROT_SOCK-1, true? steved. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs