[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD
From: |
Jacques A. Vidrine |
Subject: |
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:33:06 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
I think this will be my last posting on this topic. I don't think
anything useful is being added now -- you appear to just be flaming.
I don't really want to encourage that.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 02:10:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> My point is that you are willing to deliberately introduce a bug!
I can't follow what you're saying. I'm not introducing anything.
> > > You really think this is a serious cost in
> > > a program that is doing lots of encryption??
> >
> > No, I don't -- I just think it is a bug. One which is easy to fix for
> > the single-threaded case.
>
> It's a bug to correctly support long hostnames?
You've chopped too much. The `bug' I refer to above is that the
xgethostname implementation that was forwarded to me uses realloc
unnecessarily. You seem anxious to put words into my mouth.
> I remember when passwords were limited to eight characters. "What
> possible value is there in a longer password?" we were asked. We have
> since learned that there is such value.
Much like comparing the hostname to pathnames, this is an
apples-to-oranges comparison. Besides, since the system can define
HOST_NAME_MAX to be any value larger than _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX, there
is no arbitrary limit. As has been discussed, this is the reason the
constant was introduced (rather than a hard limit of 255).
> I don't know what possible value there is in huge hostnames. But I
> have enough humility to know that in nearly every case where there has
> been a fixed limit on the length of a thing, it has turned out to be a
> serious problem, and needed to be fixed. I expect this case will be
> the same.
You haven't shown any humility at all. Far from it, you insist that
your point of view is the only possibly valid one.
> Since it's easy to simply handle the case correctly, why not do so?
> Why deliberately cripple the software?
``Have you stopped <dishonourable-practice> yet?'' I've outlined why
I think having the situation with gethostname on GNU/Hurd stinks. We
disagree, but there's no need for an attack.
Cheers,
--
Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.com> http://www.nectar.com/
Verio Web Hosting = FreeBSD UNIX = Heimdal Kerberos
jvidrine@verio.net = nectar@FreeBSD.org = nectar@pdc.kth.se
- heimdal on GNU HURD, James Morrison, 2001/09/28
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/28
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD,
Jacques A. Vidrine <=
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29