Subject: Re: nsswitch.conf and irs.conf
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Noriyuki Soda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/20/2003 19:06:46
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:33:21 +0900, email@example.com said:
> do we have such manpower to maintain separate resolver library from
> BIND8? this is my fundamental question.
I think we should switch to the BIND8 resolver library.
But what we are now talking about is not a resolver library, but
a name service library built upon the resolver library, isn't it?
>> BTW, I think the way to implement the thread safeness in the IRS library
>> is somewhat lame. gethostbyname(3) should be implemented by a call to
>> gethostbyname_r(3), rather than vice versa as the IRS currently
>> does. Using a thread local strage may make sesne, if you cannot modify
> which source code are you looking at? i guess you are looking at
> something wrong. if you look at BIND8 src/lib/irs/gethostent.c,
> gethostbyname() calls gethostbyname_p()
> gethostbyname_p() calls gethostbyname2_p()
> gethostbyname2_p() does the real thing
> so i see no problem here.
For example, please look at either
In this file, gethostbyname_r(3) calls gethostbyname(3) internally.
In other words, what the IRS did is to make gethostbyname(3) MT safe
to implement gethostbyname_r(3). :-O
This is what I think wasteful.
It seems the IRS implementation heavily depends on the thread specific
data feature of the pthread library. But in theory, a name service
library doesn't have to use the TSD feature in its implemetation
(and actually glibc nsswitch implementation doesn't use it).
I think it is better to avoid the use of the thread specific data,
because of efficiency and source code readablity reason.