Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot, once again

In article <20090716105202.ga18...@logic.at> you wrote: > What is currently the expert way to avoid/handle such port conflicts > in Debian? Afaik the outcome was, that daemons should only use random priveledged ports which are not in services file. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot, once again

Gernot Salzer wrote: Hi, > What is currently the expert way to avoid/handle such port conflicts > in Debian? /etc/bindresvport.blacklist JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - Public key available on - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 09:33:17PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > > "Mark Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In an ideal world dynamic services would have a range of ports reserved > >for them. We're quite a way away from an ideal world here. > There are ports for

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

"Mark Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] In an ideal world dynamic services would have a range of ports reserved for them. We're quite a way away from an ideal world here. There are ports for that. All ports above 49151 are designated for local (i.e. client) or

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > not going to add a blacklist there for stuff in /etc/services. Please reread > the references I gave in my previous e-mail. I shall. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkne

Portreserve package alternative solution (was Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:54:56PM +0200, Gernot Salzer wrote: > > Well, the problem has been around since at least 2002, so I'd prefer to start > doing something about it. Ok, ok. Just for the sake of those being bitten by this bug I've made portreserve packages and sent and ITP. Packages are cu

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:27:14PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > dependencies won't help for this problem. The only real option is to > change libc/portmap/all RPC services to consult a blacklist of ports > shipped in libc/portmap. Given that none of the upstream libc maintainers who I've seen

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

"Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The same is true for other RPC servers. It's the libc that restricts the port numbers (look at glibc-2.3.5/sunrpc/bindrsvprt.c, currently, it seems it's port = (PID % 424) + 600). And, as I've said,

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:44:49PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Well, my idea is to fix only the rpc servers which cause trouble (ie. > started early). and if this is only ypbind it needs to be modified to use a > fixed port and register itself with pmap_set. Most of the NIS services (includin

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:02:41PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > FWIW, this bug has only been reported once (and reassigned to portmap) > see #261484 so its seems Debian users don't get beaten by this too often. There's at least two people who have reported this against nis too.

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

> This was already brought up to debian-devel. This thread has more > solutions, but addresses less problems: what if the service is to be > started when the package is installed but a RPC programs already > listens there? The solution of shipping port reservations or of init > dependencies

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

Hi, This was already brought up to debian-devel. This thread has more solutions, but addresses less problems: what if the service is to be started when the package is installed but a RPC programs already listens there? The solution of shipping port reservations or of init dependenci

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:11:03PM +0200, Gernot Salzer wrote: > It is not ypbind that is broken but the service that hands out > the port numbers and that is called by ypbind (and by other > services). It just happens that most clashes occur in connection > with ypbind, due to its prominence and i

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

> FWIW, this bug has only been reported once (and reassigned to portmap) > see #261484 No. See also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306465 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=257876 In each thread several people report of similar problems. > so its seems Debian user

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:20:21AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Gernot Salzer wrote: > > - Modify portmap/bindresvport such that certain blacklisted > > ports are skipped even if they are not yet in use when a > > new priviledged port ist requested. > > Sinc

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

> why not request a fixed port for ypbind? It is not ypbind that is broken but the service that hands out the port numbers and that is called by ypbind (and by other services). It just happens that most clashes occur in connection with ypbind, due to its prominence and its place in the init sequen

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:36:55PM +0200, Gernot Salzer wrote: > Starting ypbind later during boot is no solution in general since some > services rely on ypbind AND fixed priviledged ports. > Possible solutions are: > > - Modify portmap/bindresvport such that certain blacklisted > ports are ski

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > I propose to modify Debian in this way. why not request a fixed port for ypbind? Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Gernot Salzer wrote: > - Modify portmap/bindresvport such that certain blacklisted > ports are skipped even if they are not yet in use when a > new priviledged port ist requested. Since the braindamaged one here is portmap, that's probably best. Modify it to never use anyt