From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: host name length
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:05:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041203160538.77a22864.rddunlap@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40521AA6.7070308@redhat.com>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:16:38 -0800 Ulrich Drepper wrote:
| 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 <linux/utsname.h>. 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?
Yes (if not all forgotten).
I was waiting for 2.7, but that seems to be the wrong thing to do.
Can you show/tell me where _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX is specified to be
at least 256? All that I have found so far is SuSv3
[ http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/ ], which says for
sys/utsname.h - system name structure:
char sysname[] Name of this implementation of the operating system.
char nodename[] Name of this node within the communications
network to which this node is attached, if any.
char release[] Current release level of this implementation.
char version[] Current version level of this release.
char machine[] Name of the hardware type on which the system is running.
The character arrays are of unspecified size, but the data stored in them
shall be terminated by a null byte.
</quote>
and LSB 2.0.1:
[ http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_2.0.1/LSB-Core/LSB-Core.html ]
Maximum length of a host name (not including the terminating null) as returned
from the gethostname function shall be at least 255 bytes.
</quote>
Is there somewhere else to look?
Anyway, I'm willing to do the kernel work if you want help with it.
---
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-04 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-12 20:16 Ulrich Drepper
2004-12-04 0:05 ` Randy.Dunlap [this message]
2004-12-05 19:47 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-12-06 8:35 ` Jan Engelhardt
2004-12-06 16:45 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-12-06 17:31 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2004-12-06 19:25 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-12-06 19:28 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2004-12-08 20:29 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-12-09 0:35 ` Ulrich Drepper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041203160538.77a22864.rddunlap@osdl.org \
--to=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®