On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:10:10PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:47:36PM +0900, Nobuhiro Itou wrote: > >>Hi, Dan > >> > >>Would you give me a comment on this patch? > >>If not, please apply it. > >> > >>I think virt-install should check the VNC port number that the user > >>cannot specify. > > > >Sorry, I missed it first time around. It looks good - although it 5900 is a > >valid port number to use, so I'll just s/5901/5900/ when applying it. > > Probably a stupid question, but why, other than convention, are ports < > 5900 not valid for VNC? All the implementations we talk to in libvirt ultimately convert this port number into a display number by subtracting 5900. So if we allowed < 5900, they'd end up -ve and bad stuff would happen. So it seems like a sensible precaution to restrict it in this way, even though the raw RFB protocol has no such restriction. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
