|
Message-Id: <920FAE31-1962-4465-AB23-06E6FF55E63A@Wilcox-Tech.com> 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.