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

["R. W. Rodolico" <rodo@dailydata.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5927 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, I don't know what a recursor is but you can use .194. It is
currently not being used. Is this permanent, ie do I label it as
"testing" or do you need it for a more permanent basis. If you need it
permanently, that is fine; I just need to know how to label it in our
database.

On 01/20/2016 05:51 PM, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I don't think that this is just *your* problem.
> 
> So far we have had random crashes of dnsmasq on random machines. 
> Sometimes that happens three times in a row within 10 minutes. 
> Sometimes that doesn't happen for a few months. We have had this
> with many name servers. Some of which have been reported to "work
> better". Some of which have been reported to work "worse". That
> also includes 8.8.8.8 and the LWL name servers.
> 
> So it is just you who is having the troubles more often than
> usual. Maybe that will go away soon.
> 
> I am not fully convinced that the type of server plays a big role
> in here. It might be something like the timing of the replies, etc.
> What leads me to that idea is that the crashes are usually not
> reproducible by a single query that goes wrong.
> 
> I can set up a recursor on the machine you set up for me. Just give
> it an additional IP address and I will setup the resolver. I am 
> maintaining a few already, so this won't hurt at all.
> 
> Best, -Michael
> 
> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 12:58 -0600, R. W. Rodolico wrote:
>> Ok. I just want to make sure this is not a local problem.
>> 
>> Am I the only one who is having issues? If so, then all this work
>> has been for nothing. I was under the impression that there were
>> several reports of this issue, but if I'm the only one having the
>> problem, then I'll rebuild the test router (my home office
>> router) and we'll put effort into something else.
>> 
>> Again, if several people are reporting it, it is something that
>> needs to be fixed. But if I'm the only one with the issue, then
>> it is probably *MY* problem, not a problem with something else.
>> 
>> Fred, I agree, it looks like it is a problem with dnsmaq and
>> certain DNS providers, but I'm using Google and Level 3 for my
>> tests and it fails every couple of weeks. I'm suspicious of the
>> DNS servers which make money off their services by putting ads up
>> (which it appears Level 3 does. If you put an invalid domain name
>> up, it comes up with an ad to purchase it. I have not looked at
>> their traffic patterns to see what it is, but I had absolute no
>> issues when I was using the German servers.
>> 
>> So, if you think this is a one off, let's get off the issue and
>> I'll work on *MY* problem.
>> 
>> Let me know.
>> 
>> Rod
>> 
>> On 01/20/2016 12:23 PM, Kienker, Fred wrote:
>>> The last update to dnsmasq has run fine on all of our IPFire 
>>> systems with the Google and Level 3 DNS servers for an extended
>>> period of time. Could all of the issues be a conflict with the
>>> dnsmasq code and *certain* DNS providers? If so this seems like
>>> a much harder problem to fix.
>>> 
>>> Fred
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Fischer
>>> [mailto:matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 19,
>>> 2016 2:59 PM To: development(a)lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re:
>>> [PATCH] dnsmasq 2.75: next patch... (No.50)
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

- -- 
Rod Rodolico
Daily Data, Inc.
POB 140465
Dallas TX 75214-0465
214.827.2170
http://www.dailydata.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlagUvsACgkQuVY3UpYMlTSyCQCfTczs4yUYQnVp4q0SDG04JlMT
+4IAn3A0OXavE5z+nfvMB7G0xo05to+c
=3XWJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----