On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:44 AM -05, Neal Cardwell wrote: > )On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 6:53 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> This patch set is a follow up to the "How to share IPv4 addresses by >> partitioning the port space" talk given at LPC 2022 [1]. >> >> Please see patch #1 for the motivation & the use case description. >> Patch #2 adds tests exercising the new option in various scenarios. >> >> Documentation >> ------------- >> >> Proposed update to the ip(7) man-page: >> >> IP_LOCAL_PORT_RANGE (since Linux X.Y) >> Set or get the per-socket default local port range. This >> option can be used to clamp down the global local port >> range, defined by the ip_local_port_range /proc inter‐ >> face described below, for a given socket. >> >> The option takes an uint32_t value with the high 16 bits >> set to the upper range bound, and the low 16 bits set to >> the lower range bound. Range bounds are inclusive. > > IMHO it would be nice for this text to document whether the port > numbers are in host order or network order, and perhaps whether "high" > and "low" here refer to host or network order. Key parts of the > sockets API express port numbers in network order, but this new API > seems to express port numbers in host order, so it seem worth (a) > deciding carefully, and (b) documenting explicitly in the man page > text (here in the cover letter) and commit message for the patch > (patch #1). Good point. Thanks for feedback. I will expand the description for the man page and the patch #1. Personally I don't see any upside to using the network byte order here. With host byte order, users don't need to do anything else but pack the two u16 values.
