Alleged bug in resolver code
H . J . Lu
hjl@lucon.org
Sat Jul 15 10:06:00 GMT 2000
On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 03:02:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> How about this patch instead? If res_nclose is not supposed to be
> called without initialization, this patch shouldn't break anything.
>
>
> H.J.
> --
> 2000-07-14 H.J. Lu <hjl@gnu.org>
>
> * resolv/res_send.c (res_nclose): Return if not initialized.
>
> I'd rather not do *that*. The res_nclose() function is part of the
> new thread-safe BIND-8 interfaces. Those interfaces never call
> res_ninit() themselves (e.g. you always have to pass them an initialize
> resolver state). Since these interfaces are new in glibc 2.2 there
> are no backwards compatibility issues, and I think we should
>
I see.
> I've got less problems with applying a patch similar to yours to
> res_close(), and I'll add that stuff if others on libc-hacker agree
> that that's a good idea. However, I still think it's the broken
> programs that should be fixed.
I agree with Ulrich. Those programs are broken with glibc 2.2. But
they are not with glibc 2.1. In fact, we just changed the API on
res_close in 2.2. I don't think it is a good idea.
H.J.
More information about the Libc-hacker
mailing list