Re: [PATCH] rdma/cm: Randomize local port allocation.

[Tetsuo Handa]

Cong Wang wrote:
 Sean Hefty wrote:
  I like this version, thanks!  I'm not sure which tree to merge it through.
  Are you needing this for 2.6.34, or is 2.6.35 okay?
  
 
 As soon as possible, so 2.6.34. :)
 
Cong, merge window for 2.6.34 was already closed.
You need to make your patchset towards 2.6.35 (using net-next-2.6 tree)
rather than 2.6.34 (using linux-2.6 tree). Therefore, this patch being
queued for 2.6.35 (through net-next-2.6 tree) should be okay for you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC Patch] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed portnumbers

[Tetsuo Handa]

Cong Wang wrote:
 The problem is that there are some existing applications which use
 fixed port number, we don't have chances to change this for them,
 thus making them working is desired, so they want to reserve these
 port for those applications.
 
 For example, if I have an appliction which uses port 4, but
 before this application starts, another application gets this port
 number by bind() with port 0 (i.e. chosen by kernel), in this case,
 that application will fail to start. Again, we don't have any chance
 to change the source code of that application.
 
And there is a utility called portreserved (port reserve daemon).
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Portreserve

But that utility cannot close the race window between portreserved stops
reserving local port numbers and applications starts using local port
numbers which portreserved was reserving.

Thus, I think people want to have port reservation mechanism inside kernel
(if it has little impact).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html