From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xprt_bindresvport Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:36:38 -0400 Message-ID: <42DA42C6.1020005@RedHat.com> References: <20050711092556.GD27163@suse.de> <42D68C0B.9000106@RedHat.com> <20050716071144.GA7451@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-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Du7Ry-00062G-R8 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 04:36:50 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1Du7Ry-0007rA-E3 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 04:36:50 -0700 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20050716071144.GA7451@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: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:00:11PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > >>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? > > > I don't understand. Of course you can bind to any socket up to 65535, > not just 1023. Understood... but ports > 1023 are not considered privileged and connections that are not using privilege ports will not be accepted by a number of RPC daemon.. > And in an environment where the admin doesn't care for privileged > vs unprivileged ports, it's good to give him the choice of allowing > the kernel to bind to any port. If such an environment exists, then I agree... but I don't think this is the norm... I'm pretty sure a lot of RPC daemons check for privileged port by default... Something I don't think admits can turn off... Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of being able to define the range of privileged ports the kernel can use (I think it will be very handy), but by definition a privileged port is between 1 and 1023 and by setting the max port to 1023 we would be maintaining that definition... 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