From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Staubach Subject: Re: [patch] Underscore in hostnames Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:26:32 -0500 Message-ID: <457FFF88.9020601@redhat.com> References: <20061207232212.GA1994@sleipnir.redhat.com> <1165809391.3380.8.camel@raven.themaw.net> <20061211120507.GA2629@sleipnir.redhat.com> <1165851275.3380.42.camel@raven.themaw.net> <457D7FD7.5030702@redhat.com> <20061211165824.GB2629@sleipnir.redhat.com> <1165979036.3332.15.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1165979036.3332.15.camel@raven.themaw.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Ian Kent Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Ian Kent wrote: > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 14:58 -0200, Fabio Olive Leite wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:17:31AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> >>> If you want to disallow this, then surely it is best to simply "fix" >>> the name resolution routines in libc. At this point, however, that >>> could be viewed as a regression. >>> > > I've thought more about this and Peter certainly has a valid concern. > > However, I think that the decision as to whether a host name may contain > an "_" is the responsibility of the service that resolves names, such as > FNS, and not of an application that uses the names. If the name resolves > I think we should just use it. > > This sounds very reasonable to me. ps > So I'm going to add the original patch when I get a chance.. > > >> Even though I do my own RFC evangelizing at times, I can't help but >> think: why limit automount with a hostname validation routine when >> automount is *not* the authoritative entity that decides what is a >> valid hostname? Will you want to patch automount again whenever the >> RFCs get updated? >> >> automount should regard the hostname as a string, and if it can be >> resolved, great. If it cannot, complain in the logs and exit. But it >> should not enforce validation on top of something that can be >> redefined under its feet anytime in the future. >> >> Will you also include validation for bracketed IPv6 literals? And >> whatever comes next? >> > > Basically, yes. > I want input validation and will have to deal with it as and when > needed. > > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > autofs mailing list > autofs@linux.kernel.org > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs >