Re: --min-parallelism sets max parallelism too

["Kris Katterjohn" <katterjohn () gmail com>]

On 9/2/07, David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:

> > Well, there is also this line above that:
> >
> >   if (max_parallelism && min_parallelism && (min_parallelism >
> > max_parallelism)) {
> >     fatal("--min-parallelism=%i must be less than or equal to
> > --max-parallelism=%i",min_parallelism,max_parallelism);
> >
> > So if they are both set, and min > max, then it bails.
> >
> > But otherwise, max = min because you need to have max >= min and (I
> guess)
> > you can't really gauge how much the user wants for a max.
>
> Right, but when I set --min-parallelism, I expect the parallelism to
> actually be able to increase above the minimum.
>
> We can just use the convention that 0 for min_parallelism and
> max_parallelism means "unset". The other parts of the code already work
> that way. ultra_scan, for example, uses 300 for the maximum congestion
> window if o.max_parallelism is 0.
>
> Or else we could just initialize the maximum to be something huge like
> 100000, like what is already done with o.max_host_group_sz.
Yeah, that's a good point.

Like I said, I only mainly use the timing templates and I wasn't sure how
everything works internally, but that looks like a really good idea.

Thanks,
Kris Katterjohn

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org