Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:02:00 -0700 From: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, Keith Stevenson <k.stevenson@louisville.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Inetd and wrapping. Message-ID: <199906252002.NAA31761@sigma.veritas.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:12:01 BST." <19990625201201.A10893@boole.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:12:01 BST, David Malone writes: >This isn't so much a conf format change, as a conf format extension. >It is the same type of extension as was added to support max child >and max child per minute - which aren't a standard inetd feature. >All old inetd.conf files remain valid. hey, that's a pretty neat feature. i confess i wasn't aware of that. out of curiosity, can old inetds read this without choking? (sheldon said backwards compatible the other day but i'm not sure if he meant upwards compatible...) >(It's not like inetd.conf is all that machine independant anyway, >as it is full of paths to programs and contains services specific >to that machine. You'd never condider rdisting it between machines >of a different architecture for example). agreed; what i was trying to get at is the mental difference in dealing with it. i didn't realize there was an extension already in place -- i should have checked the man page over when i saw sheldon's first message about "wait/10/10/nowrap". in order to make this compatible won't one have to specify the not-so-pretty "wait/0/0/nowrap"? i guess "wait/nowrap" could be made to work. that's less ugly. is 0 already an alias for "unlimited"? i am less bothered by this change given the maxchild precedent, if there are definitely people who will *use* this. if people don't actually use it, it will just become a chunk of legacy extra-complexity. >Some people think that doing the hosts.allow lookup is too expensive >for some services but not others. (It requires opening /etc/hosts.allow, >reading it in line by line and possibly doing DNS lookups). you won't have to go to disk, though (it will be cached for all cases in which you care), and if you've got an early allow rule for the service, you won't have to do any lookups. and like you say, if it's that sensitive, why is it starting out of inetd? all: sorry if i came off too strident. i have a sore spot for feeping creaturism. :) aaron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906252002.NAA31761>