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. 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 [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
