On 19/08/2021 10:01, Andre Heider wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 13:34, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> On 12/08/2021 12:23, Andre Heider wrote:
>>> It works with dnssec enabled but 'ednspacket_max 1280' removed...
>>>
>> This may be getting closer to the original problem. What do the query
>> logs look like when t
On 12/08/2021 13:34, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 12:23, Andre Heider wrote:
It works with dnssec enabled but 'ednspacket_max 1280' removed...
This may be getting closer to the original problem. What do the query
logs look like when that fails? Also is stubby handling queries on TCP OK?
On 12/08/2021 13:34, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 12:23, Andre Heider wrote:
Hm, works if I disable dnssec on dnsmask:
dig thekelleys.org.uk
; <<>> DiG 9.16.15-Debian <<>> thekelleys.org.uk
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7599
On 12/08/2021 12:23, Andre Heider wrote:
>> Hm, works if I disable dnssec on dnsmask:
>>
>> dig thekelleys.org.uk
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.16.15-Debian <<>> thekelleys.org.uk
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> ;; Got answer:
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7599
>> ;; flags: qr rd ra;
On 12/08/2021 10:48, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
>
> # RFC6761 included configuration file for dnsmasq
> #
> # includes a list of domains that should not be forwarded to Internet name
> servers
> # to reduce burden on them, asking questions that they won't know the answer
> to.
>
> serve
On 12/08/2021 13:17, Andre Heider wrote:
On 12/08/2021 12:58, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 11:34, Andre Heider wrote:
On 12/08/2021 11:33, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 09:50, Dominik wrote:
Hey Andre,
Do you have a chance to run latest master code or are you bound to
test
t
On 12/08/2021 12:58, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 11:34, Andre Heider wrote:
On 12/08/2021 11:33, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 09:50, Dominik wrote:
Hey Andre,
Do you have a chance to run latest master code or are you bound to test
tags on your system?
I just tagged the lat
On 12/08/2021 11:33, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 12/08/2021 09:50, Dominik wrote:
Hey Andre,
Do you have a chance to run latest master code or are you bound to test
tags on your system?
I just tagged the latest code as 2.86test7, in case that helps.
It may? But your httpd seems down, at lea
On 12/08/2021 11:06, Simon Kelley wrote:
This is useful information, but the backtraces are puzzling: the code
isn't in tight loop, certainly.
I wonder if the v4only.arpa thing is not a coincidence?
Some things to try, please.
1) When the dnsmasq process is faulted, run
strace -p
Will do,
On 12/08/2021 11:34, Andre Heider wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 11:33, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/08/2021 09:50, Dominik wrote:
>>> Hey Andre,
>>>
>>
>>> Do you have a chance to run latest master code or are you bound to test
>>> tags on your system?
>>
>> I just tagged the latest code as 2.86t
> On 12 Aug 2021, at 10:06, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
> This is useful information, but the backtraces are puzzling: the code
> isn't in tight loop, certainly.
>
>
> I wonder if the v4only.arpa thing is not a coincidence?
>
> Some things to try, please.
>
> 1) When the dnsmasq process is faulte
On 12/08/2021 09:50, Dominik wrote:
> Hey Andre,
>
> Do you have a chance to run latest master code or are you bound to test
> tags on your system?
I just tagged the latest code as 2.86test7, in case that helps.
Simon.
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailin
This is useful information, but the backtraces are puzzling: the code
isn't in tight loop, certainly.
I wonder if the v4only.arpa thing is not a coincidence?
Some things to try, please.
1) When the dnsmasq process is faulted, run
strace -p
2) Try doing a query on ipv4only.arpa to dnsmasq dir
Hey Andre,
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 16:50 +0200, Andre Heider wrote:
> Continuing and breaking again about 30 times mostly yields line 319 as
> above (which is 'difftime(now, master->forwardtime) > FORWARD_TIME ||')
>
> A few times it hits 341 though ('while (forward->blocking_query)'):
Do you hav
Hi there,
it seems I can trigger this semi-reliably while powering up 2 KVM
windows instances in parallel.
This is the tail of log-queries:
dnsmasq[6591]: query[A] foo.internal from 192.168.0.foo
dnsmasq[6591]: DHCP foo.internal is 192.168.0.foo
dnsmasq[6591]: query[] foo.internal from 192
On 11/08/2021 16:19, Andre Heider wrote:
Hi there,
it seems I can trigger this semi-reliably while powering up 2 KVM
windows instances in parallel.
This is the tail of log-queries:
dnsmasq[6591]: query[A] foo.internal from 192.168.0.foo
dnsmasq[6591]: DHCP foo.internal is 192.168.0.foo
dnsmas
Hi there,
On 11/08/2021 09:45, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote:
Hi Andre,
This is curious ‘cos I’ve just been running 2.88test6 for the past 28 days (I
was away in Japan for a month and was banned from touching the openwrt router
whilst I was away) with stubby without any problems.
My stubby c
On 11/08/2021 16:10, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
Hi Andre, et al.
On Aug 11, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Andre Heider wrote:
I'm using 2.86test6 on OpenWrt, and I think I've found a bug. Detail's are
vague so far but ever since I've started DoT with stubby as upstream server,
dnsmasq every now and then ge
Hi Andre, et al.
> On Aug 11, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Andre Heider wrote:
>
> I'm using 2.86test6 on OpenWrt, and I think I've found a bug. Detail's are
> vague so far but ever since I've started DoT with stubby as upstream server,
> dnsmasq every now and then gets into a mode where it stops respond
On 11/08/2021 10:13, Dominik wrote:
Hey Andre,
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 08:36 +0200, Andre Heider wrote:
How to I get a backtrace without gdb?
Maybe running the much smaller gdbserver on the router can be a
solution. gdb itself would be running in another (more beefy) computer.
Have a look here
Hey Andre,
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 08:36 +0200, Andre Heider wrote:
> How to I get a backtrace without gdb?
Maybe running the much smaller gdbserver on the router can be a
solution. gdb itself would be running in another (more beefy) computer.
Have a look here https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-develop
Hi Andre,
This is curious ‘cos I’ve just been running 2.88test6 for the past 28 days (I
was away in Japan for a month and was banned from touching the openwrt router
whilst I was away) with stubby without any problems.
My stubby config is different:
# Autogenerated configuration from uci data
On 10/08/2021 23:11, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 10/08/2021 14:53, Dominik wrote:
Hey Simon,
various dnsmasq-2.86 test tags are around and it doesn't look like
there are any intermediate bugs around. The Pi-hole beta seems to have
attracted at least a few couple of dozen additional testers and nothi
On 10/08/2021 14:53, Dominik wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> various dnsmasq-2.86 test tags are around and it doesn't look like
> there are any intermediate bugs around. The Pi-hole beta seems to have
> attracted at least a few couple of dozen additional testers and nothing
> seems to have come up here, e
Hey Simon,
various dnsmasq-2.86 test tags are around and it doesn't look like
there are any intermediate bugs around. The Pi-hole beta seems to have
attracted at least a few couple of dozen additional testers and nothing
seems to have come up here, either.
How do you feel about tagging a v2.86 re
25 matches
Mail list logo
