Re: [PATCH] dnsmasq 2.75: next patch... (No.50)

[Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4231 bytes --]

Hi,

On 19.01.2016 22:27, R. W. Rodolico wrote:
> Matthias,
> 
> I'm willing to do whatever you want with this to try and track the
> problem down. I can leave it at the current NS servers, or change them
> over. I'd recommend testing by leaving it pointing to the current NS
> servers for a while and see if it breaks again. Then, if it does, I'll
> move to the German servers and/or build my own.

Just in short:
I think you're right - this could be one possibility. If I were you, I
would choose the german servers, stay on the last published version and
see how this one is behaving.

You (and others) can ask at (any time) for the last version, no problem
- I'll keep this thing updated. Like Lauren wrote: "If you need
anything, just whistle..." ;-))

> I also think there have been so many updates to this that it makes it
> hard to say exactly what the problem is. I'd like to stay on one
> instance of dnsmasq for the testing period so we don't introduce any
> additional variables. That can be the new one you want to look at, or
> the one you uploaded (dnsmasq_275_2016_01_16) on the 16th. I have all
> the ones all the way back to 2015-12-18 still on my the router, so I can
> switch to any of them you want, but in order to say "it is a remote name
> server issue" it might be best to choose one and stick with it for a while.

ACK. The next two patches just came out (No.054 and 055), which should
fix other patches: its getting a bit tiring.

> As it stands now, on the 16th, I installed dnsmasq_275_2016_01_16 AND
> changed the name servers all at the same time (or maybe changed the name
> servers on the previous version, don't remember).

Doesn't matter. As you said: for now, stick with *one* version and test
with different nameservers. Update-patches are coming too fast at the
moment.

> OF COURSE, a solution might be to build a cron job that restarts dnsmasq
> every 12 hours or so :(

This would be the worst case for you, IMHO.

Best,
Matthias

> Rod
> 
> On 01/19/2016 01:59 PM, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 19.01.2016 08:39, R. W. Rodolico wrote:
>>> I installed this package yesterday and dnsmasq broke a few minutes ago.
>>> About 24 hours.
>> 
>> Worked for 24 hours and then crashed? Weird. But thinking of it, this
>> could be one of the reasons why its not crashing *here*. Every 24 hours
>> my ISP cuts the connection, and our router gets a new IP and 'dnsmasq'
>> restarts!
>> 
>>> Strange thing: when I was using the servers you recommended
>>> 84.200.69.80, 84.200.70.40
>>> I did not have any problems even though you have been updating very
>>> frequently. However, I reverted to the old DNS servers
>>> 209.244.0.3 8.8.4.4
>>> and in less than a few days (I think I did it with the 15th or 14th
>>> update), it broke again. Those servers are, respectively,
>>> resolver1.level3.net and one of the google ones.
>> 
>> So as I understand you, its related with the DNS servers you use!? With
>> your ISP servers, it crashes and with the german servers, it doesn't?
>> 
>>> Let me know if you want me to use the 84 DNS servers. Hell, I may just
>>> decide to build my own caching DNS servers!!!
>> 
>> Ok, solution found - that was easy... ;-))
>> 
>> But as long as I'm working on this, I'm more and more sure that these
>> intermediate crashes are really a combination between the DNS servers
>> and 'dnsmasq' itself. Sad to say, I haven't got the (C-)skills to debug
>> this.
>> 
>> Right now, I'm trying to compile 'dnsmasq' with patches 051-053: it now
>> crashes in 'forward.c' during compilation if I activate the
>> DNSSEC-option (-e 's|/\* #define HAVE_DNSSEC \*/|#define HAVE_DNSSEC|g'
>> \). Reason: patch No.053, I think.
>> 
>> In contrast, the '2.76test6'-version compiles without *any* error, if I
>> delete and disable *all* of our adjustments.
>> 
>> As Simon wrote: "Conditional combination has a nasty combinatorial
>> explosion. I should hack up a regression test to build all possible
>> variants."
>> 
>> But obviously this wasn't done yet. If I leave everything as it is, its
>> building...
>> 
>> Perhaps I'll try another request on the dnsmasq-list during the next
>> days. The last one had no effect, no answers, nothing.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>> 
>