Re: [RFC] API to modify /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 04/09/2012 10:43 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 22:24 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
I would like to follow up on my last patch series to be able to modify
the contents of the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports port list
from userspace.

My last patch (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/10/187) was based on
modifications to the proc interface, which - based on the feedback here
on the list - seemed to not be the right way to go (although I personally
still like the idea very much :-)).

Anyway, with this RFC I would like to get feedback about a new proposed
API and attached kernel patch.

The idea is to introduce a new<optname>  value for get/setsockopt()
named SO_RESERVED_PORTS to get/set the ip_local_reserved_ports
bitmap via standard get/setsockopt() syscalls.
As far as I understand this seems to be similiar to how iptables works.

An untested kernel patch for review and feedback is attached below.

In userspace it then would be possible to write a new tool or to extend
for example the "ip" tool to accept commands like:
$>  ip reserved_ports add 100-2000
$>  ip reserved_ports remove 50-60
$>  ip reserved_ports list     (to show current reserved port list)

This userspace tool could then read the port bitmap from kernel via
a) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_RAW)
b) getsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RESERVED_PORTS,<bitmaplist>)
and write back the results after modification via
c) setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RESERVED_PORTS,<bitmaplist>)

Would that be an acceptable solution?
Hmm, it is indeed that bitmap fits for syscall rather than /proc file.

But it seems that using getsockopt()/setsockopt() makes it like it is a
per-socket setting, actually it is a system-wide setting.
Yes, that's the reason why I used SOL_SOCKET which configures at least
a few system-wide settings too.

So I am
wondering if exporting a binary /proc file for this is a better
solution.
Yeah - that's another solution, but (65536 ports)/(8 bits per byte) = 8 KByte, so we
may again hit the 4k limit of /proc (unless you do binary reads which should
be done with a binary /proc-entry anyway).

Again, I'm open to develop any kind of solution which would get an OK here.

Helge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux Kernel Discussion]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux Bluetooth Networking]     [Linux Networking Users]     [VLAN]     [Git]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Assembly]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Singles Social Networking]     [Yosemite Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux Security]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Free Dating]

Add to Google Powered by Linux