Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> Eric said:
> > I don't think this needs to be pre-1.0, and there's a KISS case for simply
> > documenting it as a known bug. Opinions?
>
> I agree that it doesn't need to be fixed anytime soon and/or for 1.0.
>
> The reason I sent that message is that it's a good example of what I expect
> for "the list". More on that in another message.
>
> I think that actually fixing it is reasonably simple and low risk. The hard
> part would probably be writing the test harness.
>
> The code to add the hole is:
> restrict_mask = restrictions(rmtadr);
> if (RES_FLAGS & restrict_mask) {
> msyslog(LOG_INFO, "Server poking hole in restrictions for:
> %s",
> socktoa(rmtadr));
> restrict_source(rmtadr, false, 0);
> }
>
> The code to remove it should be as simple. We'll need a new flag for
> add-hole to set and unpeer to test.
>
> ---------
>
> The other part of my message was that maybe we don't want to poke holes in
> restrictions. Suppose I decide I don't want to use any servers run by
> Dilbert but he has a server in the pool. I'd like to be able to add a
> restrict line with a flag that says don't poke holes in me. Then the pool
> code that processes DNS lookups could skip that slot rather than poke a hole
> and add it.
>
> ----------
>
> Those could be two items on the list or one item that covers them both.
You're allowed to edit devel/TODO, Hal. :-). And in this case I think you
should, rather than have med edit it into something that might inadvertently
misrepresent what you're after.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/esr
so I can keep the invisible wheels of the Internet turning. Give generously -
the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
