Greg Thompson wrote:
>
> i've just received confirmation from the author of the KAME resolution code
> that it isn't at all thread safe:
>
> >Sure. As noted in name6.c, thread related stuff is not implemented yet.
> >Since our resolver code based on bind4 doesn't aware thread safeness,
> >all I can do now would be only putting mutex, anyway.
>
> sure enough, name6.c says:
>
> /*
> * TODO for thread safe
> * use mutex for _hostconf, _hostconf_init.
> * rewrite resolvers to be thread safe
> */
>
> now, i'd say that it's fairly important for some form of threadsafe name
> resolution to exist. until the KAME code is fixed, how about adding in the
> ipv4 _r methods that have been discussed from time to time? or, at the very
> least, put something in the manpage for getipnodebyname and friends
> indicating that the funcs are not threadsafe.
>
> as you can probably tell, i wasted several hours worth of work bumping into
> this problem.
I've been working on fleshing out the _r routines for quite some time
now. I've done all the easy ones, and the ones you're looking for
are just screaming butt-ugly. It would be simple enough to create a
mutex-protected variant of each, but that's not nearly as good a solution
as make a REAL _r implementation.
If you have implementations to offer, I'd be quite happy to review and
commit them. I haven't had enough spare time to even crack the code in
months now, unfortunately.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
