From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CF8D21190 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:22:36 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 24352 invoked by uid 550); 8 Mar 2024 17:18:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 24317 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2024 17:18:33 -0000 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 12:22:38 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: Markus Wichmann Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, David Schinazi Message-ID: <20240308172238.GO4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20240306161544.GH4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] mDNS in musl On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 04:31:02PM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote: > Am Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 04:17:44PM -0800 schrieb David Schinazi: > > I'm definitely supportive of the slippery slope argument, but I think > > there's still a real line between mDNS and NetBIOS. mDNS uses a different > > transport but lives inside the DNS namespace, whereas NetBIOS is really its > > own thing - NetBIOS names aren't valid DNS hostnames. > > One thing that came to me after thinking about it: This really puts a > wrenchs in the works of the "just proxy it" argument. Not for mDNS, but > more generally for further possible backends for the list of hosts. If > you want to support a backend that supports names that DNS can't, then > proxying isn't a solution. Who said we want support for names that DNS can't support? > We may have to look into integrating nscd support into the search for > host names. We already have it for passwd queries, after all. And then > of course there are all the attendant questions: > - Do we query nscd always or only with some config option? > - Do we query nscd after DNS or vice-versa? Is this not a policy > question? > - Is nscd failure authoritative? > &c., &c. The nscd wire format for hostnames is just bad. For example it can't convey scope_id in IPv6 results, while musl's /etc/hosts implementation can and does, making it actually useful for link-local addresses. Maybe it could be extended, but I don't see any point in worrying about this until there's a concrete need, which has not been shown. Rich