linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tools/hv: async name resolution in kvp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:46:07 +0100
From:   Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
To:     "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/hv: async name resolution in kvp_daemon

Am Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:41:44 +0100
schrieb Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>:

> FullyQualifiedDomainName

I think in the past I did asked MSFT what the host side really expects. Maybe this time there will be an answer.

Why would the host expect a FQDN from a VM? Why would it care about DNS layout of the network within the VM?

Basically my copy of hv_kvp_daemon just sends `uname -n` to the host. This is more correct. This does not waste any network resources. This, up to now, led to no complains.

So, what is the purpose of this API?

Olaf

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped