[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 06:24:19 -0500
From: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@...cox-Tech.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: DNS answer buffer is too small
On Jul 4, 2023, at 10:41 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> while the DNS RFCs do not specify any limit on the length of a CNAME
> chain, or any reasonable behavior is the chain exceeds the entire 64k
Is -> if, maybe? Otherwise, this is a fragment and perhaps it should
start “the DNS RFCs” and the comma should be removed.
Then the sentence should end at “any reasonable behaviour."
> possible message size, actual recursive servers have to impose a
> limit, and a such, for all practical purposes, chains longer than this
…and *as* such…
> limit are not usable. it turns out BIND has a hard-coded limit of 16,
> and Unbound has a default limit of 11.
The code change looks good; just trying to fix up the commit msg.
Best,
-A.
--
A. Wilcox (they/them)
SW Engineering: C++/Rust, DevOps, POSIX, Py/Ruby
Wilcox Technologies Inc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
