From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8761 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Hockin Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:33:31 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11437fe2cf796e0522e07a94 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445722433 17574 80.91.229.3 (24 Oct 2015 21:33:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:33:53 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8774-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Oct 24 23:33:48 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 1Zq6Re-0002jQ-Uv for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 23:33:47 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21810 invoked by uid 550); 24 Oct 2015 21:33:45 -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 21779 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2015 21:33:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pb5uzCqNZQeDHvNfYHsKXqigMmNlvpONP/6oDihJ1GM=; b=bqqZjQLHKKtWPGXeNPcE1xtM94W+nxEWzvl2LAQpoCYSgsHfnWwogfett9mp5+lzA+ ncI54Am6XupkQPOsQTySWp8kvkOQ9lJwpzEklDcLJrslQg8jsfUh2voeABRTEKbzXp2T ntQU+nhYAbah0WO4DJOuyhJty/3uJqIlRUUv2bKLdWw49ZN5Rc1890fGxXYrHFltt+o8 +dwQ26aoHnyljJ73IELaB3gE9tn3supdJNAugcEwvJKidwH1FRCc5qAU1H+KI2I8zo9Y aD9JtPABTRqAQzdXtcu7+fD5MJV4b4Dlu03ia8uz4mUt9awAV3WSyP1usBXvczB3yVsV DB3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pb5uzCqNZQeDHvNfYHsKXqigMmNlvpONP/6oDihJ1GM=; b=ZlAB1hhCDycLL7Wdp4j54DytswljYtT0V90+qoCihR3ltPaSBiY642ThpA/AHmO0x/ TLgfdQ8XLYx/lQo29zVYsKbWAjQCWs8BWU+L24/CtEIvjcQ6iqJf4sG2tzg/cziSB5rg CgEWhpB5zRS+Ht9xOLeoSUejWrZn62T3bc2BegGtnD0ulIv+G9a+a1KtzZVk0D6bXdNm Q3DafmIlF5dw1pFq+kWVMeOG5GdDQu44r15n+oG5pHO2mk7uvt0jkJk+spnM67LajYTs wtbgIyp9HVjiO5UDvfos93q+irLbYdTlwmcriXXzTw4RJEqrIAgHEUkYOfcm1qoaOBGR 1ofg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3RaXE8ilcYebAapr5v/a1BBGk2XUkLcs0GBENpKE34n5AXSGQRGMHCOrAxQGHs/cD0fC+ X-Received: by 10.31.54.208 with SMTP id d199mr17608680vka.143.1445722411964; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 14:33:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8761 Archived-At: --001a11437fe2cf796e0522e07a94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Oct 24, 2015 12:20 PM, "Kurt H Maier" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:24:11PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > > > > I understand your point, though the world at large tends to disagree. > > The world at large uses bad software. Please don't use this sort of > reasoning as a justification for and embrace-extend operation on actual > standards. Where is the standard that defines ordering semantics in resolv.conf? > > The real world is not ideal. Not all nameservers are identically > > scoped - you MUST respect the ordering in resolv.conf - to do > > otherwise is semantically broken. If implementation simplicity means > > literally doing queries in serial, then that is what you should do. > > You absolutely cannot respect the ordering in resolv.conf; at least not > if you're relying on someone else's resolver. If the orchestration > software depends on specific results being returned in particular > orders, the orchestration software should provide a mechanism to > generate them. > > > Similarly, you can't just search all search domains in parallel and > > take the first response. The ordering is meaningful. > > It should not be, and more to the point will not reliably be, > meaningful. Search has to be ordered. You can not possibly argue otherwise? > You are arguing for introducing performance penalties into musl that do > not affect you but do very much affect lots of other users. I hope they > do not happen -- musl is not the right place to fix your problem. I am arguing for adding a very standard feature (search) to open musl to a whole new space of users. Nobody is forcing you to use search paths or ndots. --001a11437fe2cf796e0522e07a94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Oct 24, 2015 12:20 PM, "Kurt H Maier" <khm@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 02:24:11PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> >
> > I understand your point, though the world at large tends to disag= ree.
>
> The world at large uses bad software.=C2=A0 Please don't use this = sort of
> reasoning as a justification for and embrace-extend operation on actua= l
> standards.

Where is the standard that defines ordering semantics in res= olv.conf?

> > The real world is not ideal.=C2=A0 Not all nameser= vers are identically
> > scoped - you MUST respect the ordering in resolv.conf - to do
> > otherwise is semantically broken.=C2=A0 If implementation simplic= ity means
> > literally doing queries in serial, then that is what you should d= o.
>
> You absolutely cannot respect the ordering in resolv.conf; at least no= t
> if you're relying on someone else's resolver.=C2=A0 If the orc= hestration
> software depends on specific results being returned in particular
> orders, the orchestration software should provide a mechanism to
> generate them.
>
> > Similarly, you can't just search all search domains in parall= el and
> > take the first response.=C2=A0 The ordering is meaningful.
>
> It should not be, and more to the point will not reliably be,
> meaningful.

Search has to be ordered.=C2=A0 You can not possibly argue o= therwise?

> You are arguing for introducing performance penalties i= nto musl that do
> not affect you but do very much affect lots of other users.=C2=A0 I ho= pe they
> do not happen -- musl is not the right place to fix your problem.

I am arguing for adding a very standard feature (search) to = open musl to a whole new space of users. Nobody is forcing you to use searc= h paths or ndots.

--001a11437fe2cf796e0522e07a94--