Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:18:02 -0700 (PDT) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikko_Ty=F6l=E4j=E4rvi?= <mikko@dynas.se> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, audit@FreeBSD.ORG, Alexander Litvin <archer@whichever.org>, Andriy Gapon <agapon@excite.com> Subject: Re: Thread-safe resolver [patches for review] Message-ID: <20020812150652.Q38018-100000@atlas.home> In-Reply-To: <20020812192250.4B81B2A7D6@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > I also would like to hear from you whether or not you think that we > > need all those gethostbyXXX_r(3) functions. > > Yes. Because autoconf looks for them and will assume non-reentrancy if > they are not present. Also, for source compatability with linux and > solaris and just about everything else that implements this stuff. The > expectation is that gethostbyXXX is non-safe and that gethostbyXXX_r is > safe. If you can make the non_r versions safe then that is a bonus I guess. You are aware that Solaris's version of gethostbyname_r() has a different interface than Linux's (glibc 2.whatever) variant, and that both differ from AIX's gethostbyname_r()... right? Also, some systems (HP-UX 11 and Irix [not sure, though]) have a reentrant gethostbyname(), possibly alongside a _r version marked "obsolete". So, even though I agree that having _r versions might be useful, neither autoconf (which has to be smarter than just looking for a "_r" version), nor source compatibility should be considered the main reasons, IMHO. $.02, /Mikko Mikko Työläjärvi_______________________________________mikko@rsasecurity.com RSA Security To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020812150652.Q38018-100000>