Update embedded dnsmasq to v2.91test8 #2165
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
If we get a duplicate answer for a query via UDP which we have either already received and started DNSSEC validation, or was truncated and we've passed to TCP, then just ignore it. The code was already in place, but had evolved wonky and only worked for error replies which would otherwise prompt a retransmit. Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
If the value of CFLAGS is changed between builds, the makefile will rebuid, in the same way as for COPTS. Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
When dnsmasq is configured to act as an authoritative server and has an authoritative zone configured, and recieves a query for that zone _as_forwarder_ it answers the query directly rather than forwarding it. This doesn't affect the answer, but it saves dnsmasq forwarding the query to the recusor upstream, whch then bounces it back to dnsmasq in auth mode. The exception should be when the query is for the root of zone, for a DS RR. The answer to that has to come from the parent, via the recursor, and will typically be a proof-of-nonexistence since dnsmasq doesn't support signed zones. This patch suppresses local answers and forces forwarding to the upstream recursor for such queries. It stops breakage when a DNSSEC validating client makes queries to dnsmasq acting as forwarder for a zone for which it is authoritative. Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
If the client asks for DNSSEC RRs via the do bit, and we have an answer cached, we can only return the cached answer if the RR was not validated. This is because we don't the extra info (RRSIGS, NSECs) for a complete validated answer. In that case we have to forward again. This bug was that the "is the cache entry validated" test was in an outer loop rather than an inner one. A cache hit on a different RRtype that wasn't validated would satify the condition to use the cache, even if the cache entry for the required RRtype didn't. The only time when there can be a mix of validated and non validated cache entries for the same domain is when most are not validated, but one is a negative cache for a DS record. This bug took a long time to find. Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
Let's give the poor programmers a chance. Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
yubiuser
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this implement/fix?
Add most recent
dnsmasqcommits. They are mostly concerned with mixing a local unsigned authoritative zone (e.g.,home.example.com) with a DNSSEC signed upstream zone (e.g.example.com`). The first commit improves handling of duplicate DNS answers via UDP avoiding sending duplicate information to the client downstream in edge-cases. As the client would have anyway ignored it, this is just a tweak, not a fix for anything.Related issue or feature (if applicable): N/A
Pull request in docs with documentation (if applicable): N/A
By submitting this pull request, I confirm the following:
git rebase)Checklist:
developmentalbranch.