Hello, > > It's not that one, checked out the code at the previous commit and it > > still doesn't work. I noticed that even Wireshark cannot decipher the > > replies we send. It's due to DNS Message compression specified in > > chapter 3.1.3 in RFC 1035 whose pointers are not properly updated in > > dnsproxy.c, forward_dns_reply().
> This is indeed due to the DNS messge compression. Fixing this is a > little more complicated than anticipated. It's not only a matter of > updating the pointers after removing the domain part from the reply > whenever a short form like 'www' is requested; it's also handling any > pointers that can point to the now removed domain part. With a protocol > around for ~30 years already, we can surely bet on every weird protocol > aspect being used. I've proposed some patches for DHCP domain search options which also uses the DNS message compression, code posted here: https://lists.connman.net/pipermail/connman/2013-September/015778.html is there a simple test case for the DNS problem? how to reproduce? regards, p. -- Peter Meerwald +43-664-2444418 (mobile) _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
