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
> [email protected]
> http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
>
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
