Re: Conflicting assignment of priviledged ports on boot

["Joe Smith" <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com>]

"Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña" <jfs@computer.org> wrote in message 
[🔎] 20050923141655.GB29881@javifsp.no-ip.org">news:[🔎] 20050923141655.GB29881@javifsp.no-ip.org...

> 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, the libc maintainer is
> not going to add a blacklist there for stuff in /etc/services. Please 
> reread
> the references I gave in my previous e-mail.

Um... libc *SHOULD NOT* be doing that.
A program should *NEVER* use a port in the range 1-1023 without registering 
the port with the IANA's well known port list.

It is alsa a bad idea to use a port in the range of  1024-49151 without 
registering.

If more privleged ports are needed it should be possible to have a system 
reserve a small portion of the dynamic/privare address space. (Dynamic use 
of ports outside this range is just asking for trouble.)
I suspect it is the RPC system that is brain-dead.