Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 81454
resolver search list only allows 6 domains
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:49:37 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 Galeon/1.2.7 (X11; Linux i686; U;) Gecko/20021216 Description of problem: The search list of /etc/resolv.conf is limited to six domains which, while probably sufficient for most users, is oddly/needlessly low and is constantly causing problems here. The cause of this showing up is actually our windows users who are used to not using FQDN because *they* don't need it, which then causes various intranet pages/links to appear broken etc but those I can't fix ... and unfortunately there are over six subdomains in the intra :( Could you please up the limit (both the nr of domain & the total length of the search list) to some "enough for everyone" value, something like 32 for the nr of domains and 1024 for total length? Oh and it would be nice if this was changed for possible future glibc-errata releases for earlier distros too.. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): every glibc up to date How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Add seven domains to /etc/resolv.conf search list 2. Try to ping a host in the last domain of the list Actual Results: Host is not found. Expected Results: Host should be found :) Additional info:
Given that char *dnsrch[MAXDNSRCH+1]; is part of _res variable which applications may access directly, this really cannot be changed. Sorry.
Oh well :( Would you reconsider this for RHL 9.0 (or whatever the next major release happens to be) where binary compatibility potentially breaks anyway? Just wondering would it be worth it to remind you later...
No. glibc maintains binary (althout not bug) compatibility all the way back. Furthermore, this structure is a per-thread thing, and allocating more memory per-thread for it when 99.9% users don't need it would be wasting. I'd suggest adding CNAMEs to your DNS.
Ok. CNAME's aren't going to help, the environment is far, far too big to be cured by those, but thanks for the reply anyway. I guess it's time to start bugging those web authors causing the mess then...