From owner-freebsd-net Wed Aug 9 7:40:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from hotmail.com (f305.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.183]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D3937BB11; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:40:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from johnnyteardrop@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:40:27 -0700 Received: from 209.249.186.215 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.249.186.215] From: "Greg Thompson" To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: threadsafe name resolution Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:40:27 EDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2000 14:40:27.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[C23C2360:01C0020F] Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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. -- -greg ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message