From owner-freebsd-net  Wed Aug  9 14:14:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from lychee.itojun.org (h066.p043.iij4u.or.jp [210.130.43.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9FC9C37BA28; Wed,  9 Aug 2000 14:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from itojun@itojun.org)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by itojun.org (8.10.0/3.7W) with ESMTP id e79LEI610855;
	Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:14:18 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <200008092114.e79LEI610855@itojun.org>
To: "Greg Thompson" <johnnyteardrop@hotmail.com>
Cc: crandall@matchlogic.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG,
	freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: johnnyteardrop's message of Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:36:40 EDT.
      <F39VkR7CBRnarL6ypUL000031b0@hotmail.com> 
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: threadsafe name resolution 
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:14:18 +0900
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


>as long as nothing other than getipnodebyname and byaddr share resources 
>with those two, i'm safe if i just throw a mutex around my calls to 
>byname/addr.  unfortuantely, this solution gets the "big suck" rating.  if 
>the operating system ships with mechanisms that are documented as being 
>thread-safe, they should be.  if they're not, it should be clearly stated in 
>a bug report somewhere that this is the case.  i have submitted a bug with 
>KAME.  i hope they fix it soon.  in the meantime, it'd be nice if freebsd 
>had an alternative.

	sorry for bad documentation, manpage should be updated to state
	"the current implementation is not thread safe" in BUGS section.

itojun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message