Sam Mason writes:
> Hum, why is PG doing an (unchecked) atoi on the user specified port
> rather than leaving it up to getaddrinfo to resolve the port? It would
> seem to require changing UNIXSOCK_PATH to accept a string as the "port
> number", which is probably a bit much of a change.
> The inc
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 09:29:24AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 20:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, are port numbers still limited to 16 bits in IPv6?
>
> Port numbers are in TCP, not in IP.
I'd checked that it should work with IPv6, but I hadn't realized that
it was b
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 20:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, are port numbers still limited to 16 bits in IPv6?
Port numbers are in TCP, not in IP.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-g
On 25 sep 2009, at 02.59, Tom Lane wrote:
Sam Mason writes:
+if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
I know of, because privileged ports can only b
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason writes:
>> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
>
> BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
> target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
> I know of, because privilege
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Sam Mason writes:
+ if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024.
Restricting the target port seems like a bad idea. What about a firewall
(or ssh tunn
Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason writes:
>> +if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
>
> BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
> target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
> I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by
Sam Mason writes:
> + if (portnum < 1 || portnum > 65535)
BTW, it strikes me that we could tighten this even more by rejecting
target ports below 1024. This is guaranteed safe on all Unix systems
I know of, because privileged ports can only be listened to by root-owned
processes and
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, are port numbers still limited to 16 bits in IPv6?
Yes.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Sam Mason writes:
> Hum, why is PG doing an (unchecked) atoi on the user specified port
> rather than leaving it up to getaddrinfo to resolve the port? It would
> seem to require changing UNIXSOCK_PATH to accept a string as the "port
> number", which is probably a bit much of a change.
> The incl
10 matches
Mail list logo
