Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correct port range logic for port generation #8652

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 9, 2020

Conversation

mheon
Copy link
Member

@mheon mheon commented Dec 8, 2020

The existing logic (Range > 0) always triggered, because range is guaranteed to be at least 1 (a single port has a range of 1, a two port range (e.g. 80-81) has a range of 2, and so on). As such this could cause ports that had a host port assigned to them by the user to randomly assign one instead.

Fixes #8650

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mheon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

The existing logic (Range > 0) always triggered, because range is
guaranteed to be at least 1 (a single port has a range of 1, a
two port range (e.g. 80-81) has a range of 2, and so on). As such
this could cause ports that had a host port assigned to them by
the user to randomly assign one instead.

Fixes containers#8650
Fixes containers#8651

Signed-off-by: Matthew Heon <mheon@redhat.com>
@mheon
Copy link
Member Author

mheon commented Dec 8, 2020

Now also fixes #8651

@mheon
Copy link
Member Author

mheon commented Dec 8, 2020

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL

Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Dec 8, 2020

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL

@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Dec 8, 2020

nice work @mheon

@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Dec 8, 2020

/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Dec 8, 2020
@baude
Copy link
Member

baude commented Dec 8, 2020

/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Dec 8, 2020
@mheon
Copy link
Member Author

mheon commented Dec 9, 2020

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Dec 9, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit dd295f2 into containers:master Dec 9, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 24, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 24, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Publishing one randomized host port will lead to all host ports being randomized
6 participants