This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Building consensus over DNSSEC enhancements to glibc.


On 11/17/2015 04:19 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

>> If that is the only API to be offered, I recommend we patch the
>> applications with the "postfix method" instead and for now limit
>> ourselves with dnssec only if localhost is specified in resolv.conf.
> 
> Why? It will never be enough to guarantee what you want. Such a check
> is only a heuristic. 
> 
> If you want something more sane we could make a synthetic hwcap bit
> like we did for Xen's "nosegneg" and use that to alter the behaviour
> of the stub resolver. This gives you something which would allow you
> to lock down the called recursive resolver from the very first userspace
> process. It could also be disabled on a per-process basis if you had
> a kernel interface for it. We have also had a thread local storage
> synthetic hwcap bit when we transitioned to using that feature, so
> there is some precedent.
> 
> So you'd have:
> 
> (a) New synthetic hwcap bit "local-validating-resolver" which forces
>     glibc to only talk to 127.0.0.1 from the very first userspace process.
> 
> (b) New options flag "dns-strip-dnssec-ad-bit" which forces glibc to
>     remove AD-bit data.
> 
> Mix-and-match.

That still does not do fail safe.

Paul


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]