Date:Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:05:38 +0100
From:Anthony Mallet
Message-ID: <25006.13522.25953.845...@gargle.gargle.howl>
| (BTW, in case someone did not notice, there is lib/56531)
Yes, I saw it go past, that was the "proposed correction" I referred to,
though, while that
On Monday 6 Dec 2021, at 21:40, Robert Elz wrote:
> I know this thread is largely dead by now
I still read it with interest :)
(BTW, in case someone did not notice, there is lib/56531)
Date:Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:18:07 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID:
| On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
| > DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
| > protocol always required, so can be handled by every
>> > |> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
>> > |> protocol always required, so can be handled by everything (or should
>> > be).
>>
>> That disregards EDNS0, which in the DNS "in general" is pretty
>> much universally supported these days. After all, it's nearly
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 11:20:26AM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
> > :
> > |On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > |> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
> > |> protocol always required, so can be handled by ev
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
> :
> |On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> |> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
> |> protocol always required, so can be handled by everything (or should be).
That disregards EDNS0, which in the DNS "in gen
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 07:49:26PM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:05:18 +0100
> Anthony Mallet wrote:
>
> > > Why should there be any particular minimum? It seems to me it
> > > depends on what the thread is doing (though one page, whatever that
> > > is on the hardware an
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:05:18 +0100
Anthony Mallet wrote:
> > Why should there be any particular minimum? It seems to me it
> > depends on what the thread is doing (though one page, whatever that
> > is on the hardware and release in question, is probably a pretty
> > hard minimum).
>
> That's
Mouse wrote in
<202111292115.qaa06...@stone.rodents-montreal.org>:
|> * The maximum is 65000.
|
|It probably is actually 65535, or 65495, or some such; if there is a
|limit that is actually 65000, it strikes me as unlikely to be anything
|but someone imposing an artificial round-human
> * The maximum is 65000.
It probably is actually 65535, or 65495, or some such; if there is a
limit that is actually 65000, it strikes me as unlikely to be anything
but someone imposing an artificial round-human-number limit.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Cam
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
:
|On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:31:30PM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
|> :
|>|On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
|>|> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
|>|> protocol always req
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:31:30PM +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
> :
> |On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> |> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
> |> protocol always required, so can be handled by everythin
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
:
|On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
|> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
|> protocol always required, so can be handled by everything (or should be).
|
|Strictly speaking, it is the minimum MTU every IPv4 i
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20211129173130.b55ba%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|Joerg Sonnenberger wrote in
| :
||On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
||> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
||> protocol always required, so can be handled by everythi
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:38:35PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> DNS queries (via UDP) are limited to max 512, as that is what the
> protocol always required, so can be handled by everything (or should be).
Strictly speaking, it is the minimum MTU every IPv4 implementation is
supposed to allow. IPv6
On Monday 29 Nov 2021, at 20:38, Robert Elz wrote:
> | In addition, I just noticed that res_nquery(3) in
> | libc/resolv/res_query.c uses a similar buffer but of size
> | min(PACKETSZ, 1024). PACKETSZ seems to be 512 bytes only.
>
> That is as it shoukd be.
> PR tge huge stack array if yiu wa
Date:Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:25:24 +0100
From:Anthony Mallet
Message-ID: <24996.47268.358308.412...@gargle.gargle.howl>
| In addition, I just noticed that res_nquery(3) in
| libc/resolv/res_query.c uses a similar buffer but of size
| min(PACKETSZ, 1024). PACKETSZ se
On Monday 29 Nov 2021, at 00:05, Anthony Mallet wrote:
> 64k is not small, so I still believe it should be on the heap.
In addition, I just noticed that res_nquery(3) in
libc/resolv/res_query.c uses a similar buffer but of size
min(PACKETSZ, 1024). PACKETSZ seems to be 512 bytes only.
So it seems
On Sunday 28 Nov 2021, at 17:30, Mouse wrote:
> > I think it's related to a DNS query, so it might be the max size of a
> > UDP packet? (then why not 65kB?)
>
> Because the max UDP packet size is 64k (well, 64k-1 - the length field
> is 16 bits long).
Yes, of course. I was temporarily confused .
> #define MAXPACKET(64*1024)
> I think it's related to a DNS query, so it might be the max size of a
> UDP packet? (then why not 65kB?)
Because the max UDP packet size is 64k (well, 64k-1 - the length field
is 16 bits long). The only places I see 65k are from people who
confuse sto
Hi,
I have a multi-threaded program that segfault in getaddrinfo(3).
To make a long story short, this is the backtrace from gdb:
Thread 3 "" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to LWP 14939 of process 14113]
0x7f7ff5d3af50 in res_queryN (
name=name@entry=0x7f7ff7e55cb0
21 matches
Mail list logo
