<story><title>Musl 1.2.4 adds TCP DNS fallback</title><url>https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2023/05/02/1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>InvaderFizz</author><text>Glad to see this finally come to fruition.&lt;p&gt;This has been an issue plaguing Alpine for years where the musl maintainer basically said the standard says may fallback, not must fallback. Let the rest of the internet change, we don&amp;#x27;t feel this is important. We&amp;#x27;re standards complainant.&lt;p&gt;It gained traction for the change with the latest RFC. for dns last year which made TCP fallback mandatory [0]. The cloak of standards compliant could no longer be used.&lt;p&gt;0: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;datatracker.ietf.org&amp;#x2F;doc&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;rfc9210&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;datatracker.ietf.org&amp;#x2F;doc&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;rfc9210&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kelnos</author><text>Once I started reading about these issues a few years ago, I stopped using Alpine as a container base image, and started using Debian (the &amp;#x27;debian-slim&amp;#x27; variant).  Slim is still larger than Alpine, but not by a lot, and does contain some extra functionality in the base image that&amp;#x27;s useful for debugging (most of which can be fairly easily removed for security hardening).  Debugging random DNS issues is difficult enough; there&amp;#x27;s no need to make it harder by using intentionally-faulty software.&lt;p&gt;While I wouldn&amp;#x27;t call myself a fan of Postel&amp;#x27;s Law (I think &amp;quot;being liberal with what you accept&amp;quot; can allow others to get away with sloppy implementations over long time periods, diluting the usefulness of standards and specifications), I think at some point you have to recognize the reality of how things are implemented in the real world, and that refusing to conform to the de-facto standard hurts your users.&lt;p&gt;The fact that the maintainer only caved because the TCP fallback behavior is finally being made mandatory, and not because he&amp;#x27;s (very belatedly) recognizing he&amp;#x27;s harming his users with his stubbornness, also speaks volumes... and not in a good way.</text></comment>
<story><title>Musl 1.2.4 adds TCP DNS fallback</title><url>https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2023/05/02/1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>InvaderFizz</author><text>Glad to see this finally come to fruition.&lt;p&gt;This has been an issue plaguing Alpine for years where the musl maintainer basically said the standard says may fallback, not must fallback. Let the rest of the internet change, we don&amp;#x27;t feel this is important. We&amp;#x27;re standards complainant.&lt;p&gt;It gained traction for the change with the latest RFC. for dns last year which made TCP fallback mandatory [0]. The cloak of standards compliant could no longer be used.&lt;p&gt;0: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;datatracker.ietf.org&amp;#x2F;doc&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;rfc9210&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;datatracker.ietf.org&amp;#x2F;doc&amp;#x2F;html&amp;#x2F;rfc9210&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>LexiMax</author><text>&amp;gt; This has been an issue plaguing Alpine for years where the musl maintainer basically said the standard says may fallback, not must fallback. Let the rest of the internet change, we don&amp;#x27;t feel this is important. We&amp;#x27;re standards complainant.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve never really understood the underlying mentality that causes maintainers to bend over backwards to _not_ provide popular functionality like this.&lt;p&gt;Reminds me a bit of the strlcpy&amp;#x2F;strlcat debacle with glibc.</text></comment>