From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8767 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 19:31:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20151024233119.GY8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net> <20151024215710.GA8084@wopr.sciops.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445729494 15469 80.91.229.3 (24 Oct 2015 23:31:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:31:34 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8780-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 25 01:31:34 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zq8Hd-0003wq-I6 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:31:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26130 invoked by uid 550); 24 Oct 2015 23:31:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26112 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2015 23:31:31 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151024215710.GA8084@wopr.sciops.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8767 Archived-At: On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 05:57:10PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 02:33:31PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > > Where is the standard that defines ordering semantics in resolv.conf? > > There isn't one, but that doesn't mean you get to ensconce the behavior > you like. That was my point. > > > Search has to be ordered. You can not possibly argue otherwise? > > I can and do. > > > I am arguing for adding a very standard feature (search) to open musl to a > > whole new space of users. > > You're not arguing for simple inclusion of search; At this point that actually does seem to be all that Tim is asking for. I think we're in agreement that there are multiple problems with trying to use ordered nameservers to overlay inconsistent data, and that even under the way glibc treats this setup, there are subtle problems. > you're arguing for > specific behavior that is impossible to implement in a sane manner, > because that's how glibc does it. I am not against domain and search, > but I don't just want functionality poorly added just to check some box > on a random other project's wishlist. > > > Nobody is forcing you to use search paths or ndots. > > Not sure how this is relevant? Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. > What is your point? Could you try to hold off on the hostility? I don't think there's any actual disagreement left here. Support for search domains was tabled but left open for future consideration back when the last phase of dns overhaul was done, pending actual requests/usage-cases needing them. It seems like they can be added in an inexpensive and ubobtrusive way, so I don't think it should really be controversial. Note that, as I said before, search really does have to be ordered. Otherwise you have inconsistent/non-deterministic results that can be controlled by inducing intermittent failures (DoS). The proper way to handle search is the same way the current fallback sequence (ip literal, hosts file, dns) is done: a positive result at any step ends the query, a negative result causes fallback to the next search element, and any failure at any stage causes the whole query to fail with an appropriate error. Rich