From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RDNS_NONE,
	SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: (qmail 8173 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2020 14:54:27 -0000
Received-SPF:  pass (mother.openwall.net: domain of lists.openwall.com
  designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender)
  receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=195.42.179.200
  envelope-from=<musl-return-15571-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
Received: from unknown (HELO mother.openwall.net) (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2020 14:54:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 11365 invoked by uid 550); 14 Mar 2020 14:54:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 11347 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2020 14:54:22 -0000
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:54:10 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20200314145410.GP11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <20200313214648.2qqr5utzyqy5ewsu@wolfsden.cz>
 <871rpvny3b.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <871rpvny3b.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Proposal to match behaviour of gethostbyname to glibc

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 09:24:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wolf:
> 
> > While this is admittedly edge case that most users will not run into, I
> > still think it would be nice to behave the same way as glibc does on
> > this one. And as a bonus, it will be *tiny* bit faster, since there
> > would not be any need to iterate rest of the /etc/hosts file.
> 
> But something has to scan the entire file in “multi on” mode at least,
> to find all relevant addresses.

musl doesn't use/support host.conf, so "multi on" isn't an issue for
us at present.

BTW it's not clear to me how the canonical name would/should be
determined in this example if you allow multiple hits.

Rich