Hi Wojciech, On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:30:32PM +0000, Drewek, Wojciech wrote:
> For now we don't have such tree. I will see what we can do. I would appreciate it, so we can get this tested before it hits net-next. > > I'm wondering if we should make this more explicit, i.e. rather than > > implicitly creating the kernel socket automagically, make this mode > > explicit upon request by some netlink attribute. > > I agree, it would look cleaner. Excellent. > > > Sockets are created with the > > > commonly known UDP ports used for GTP protocol (GTP0_PORT and > > > GTP1U_PORT). > > > > I'm wondering if there are use cases that need to operate on > > non-standard ports. The current module can be used that way (as the > > socket is created in user space). If the "kernel socket mode" was > > requested explicitly via netlink attribute, one could just as well > > pass along the port number[s] this way. > > Yes, it is possible to create socket with any port number using FD approach, > but gtp module still assumes that ports are 2152 and 3386 at least in tx path > (see gtp_push_header). Implementing this shouldn't be hard but is it crucial? Not crucial. -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
