Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:21:23 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternate port randomization approaches Message-ID: <20041219130649.F790@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20041218033226.L28788@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20041218033226.L28788@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Mike, On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, 04:03-0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: [...] > Although this isn't a perfect fix, I think that it should be > acceptable for the vast majority of systems, and I'd like to get it > in before 4.11-release ships. To be conservative, I'll probably > choose a value like 5, which should be fine for most systems out > there. Super specialized users will always be able to lower it to > 0. Can we leave it zero by default? I affraid this patch won't get much testing before 4.11-REL. The super specialized users will always be able to set net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized whatever they want to. The next thing I am worry about - some users already have net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 in their /etc/sysctl.conf and now we are going to change a meaning of this sysctl. Can we garantee there are no any side effects with this setting? I failed to find the documentation part of your patch also :-) -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041219130649.F790>