On 01/10/15(Thu) 19:40, Vincent Gross wrote: > Although the sysctls controlling the port range are labelled "port(hi)?first" > and > "port(hi)?last", no ordering is enforced and you can have portfirst > > portlast. > in_pcbbind() (and in6_pcbsetport()) work around this by duplicating the loop > looking > for an available port.
What about a small regress test? > This diff introduce temporary bounds and compare them to guarantee that > first <= last, thus allowing deduplication of the port scan loop. Makes sense to me, I'd keep the comment though. > > Tested on my laptop with a narrow port range and heavy cheezburger browsing, > no fault > detected. Deeper testing welcome. > > Should I include in6_pcbsetport() changes right now or should ipv4 be > validated first ? I prefer when both version are keep in sync, so yes a in6_pcbsetport() diff would be nice. Plus if it's possible to have a regress test it would be awesome.
