From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262527AbUCLUXA (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:23:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262424AbUCLUSa (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:18:30 -0500 Received: from cpe-24-221-190-179.ca.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.190.179]:38555 "EHLO myware.akkadia.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262497AbUCLUQv (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:16:51 -0500 Message-ID: <40521AA6.7070308@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:16:38 -0800 From: Ulrich Drepper Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040310 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Subject: host name length X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org POSIX nowadays contains _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX and HOST_NAME_MAX for programs to use to learn about the maximum host name length which is allowed. _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX is the standard-required minimum maximum and the value must be 256. The problem is that HOST_NAME_MAX currently is defined as 64, as defined by __NET_UTS_LEN in . I.e., we have HOST_NAME_MAX as smaller than the minimum maximum which is obviously not POSIX compliant. Now, we can simply ignore the problem or do something about it and introduce a third version of the utsname structure with sufficiently big nodename field. Many OSes used small values before but 256 was chosen as a minimum maximum and some OSes were changed since host names longer than 64 chars indeed do exist. I wonder why this never has been brought to the attention. Or were people happy enough with truncated host names? Anyway, is there interest in getting this changed? -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖