From owner-freebsd-audit Sat Nov 25 21:48: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from citusc17.usc.edu (citusc17.usc.edu [128.125.38.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A452337B4C5 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:48:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kris@localhost) by citusc17.usc.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eAQ5n3215110 for audit@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:49:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris) Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:49:03 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: MAXHOSTNAMELEN Message-ID: <20001125214903.A14677@citusc17.usc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Just wanted to check something..MAXHOSTNAMELEN is defined to be 256, which is long enough to store the maximum possible DNS name (255 octets) plus the terminating NULL. So there's no need to declare arrays to be MAXHOSTNAMELEN+1 in size, right? I'm seeing great inconsistency within our source tree, and I bumped across this in some changes I was porting from NetBSD. Kris --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjogpE8ACgkQWry0BWjoQKUrdgCgyGOEEFAVcTM7GgIefp4RtWtQ 7BcAoIoZx0PwVYiDmrlAOVc/qbPe2BGq =b4ZX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message