Re-sending previous email with HTML formatting disabled, my apologies.
Control and standard test cases for issue reproduction listed below:
A 'control' test case for the issue would be to launch dnsmasq in a typical
Docker container. The program should launch normally and begin parsing the
Control and standard test cases for issue reproduction listed below:
A 'control' test case for the issue would be to launch dnsmasq in a typical
Docker container. The program should launch normally and begin parsing the
config, etc. The `docker run` statement should contain --privileged and
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 01:09:36PM -0400, Brian Haley wrote:
> Nak.
Acknowledge
--
Silence is hard to parse
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
-- Original Message --
From "Brian Haley"
To "Geert Stappers" ;
dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
Date 3/18/2024 6:59:21 AM
Subject Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Fix potential memory leak
As an attempt to express that proposed patches get human attention.
I'm not sure what
On 18.03.24 14:21, Elias LA via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
Thanks. I see. So the rule `server=/firebaseio.com/#` is sent to local
server 127.0.0.1 which then blocks it because it has the rule
`address=/*.firebaseio.com/`
I don't think the request is sent anywhere, why would dnsmasq send it to
Thanks. I see. So the rule `server=/firebaseio.com/#` is sent to local server
127.0.0.1 which then blocks it because it has the rule
`address=/*.firebaseio.com/`
A rephrase of my question is:
How can I route `firebaseio.com` to resolve using default address (the standard
server defined by
Hi,
On 3/16/24 6:07 AM, Geert Stappers wrote:
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 05:03:01PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:43:20PM -0500, Brian Haley wrote:
When a new IPv6 address is being added to a dhcp_config
struct, if there is anything invalid regarding the prefix
it looks
On 18.03.24 12:29, Elias LA via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
Yes, I am aware about the documentation which you quoted (and which I quoted).
But how do you explain that the domain `firebaseio.com` is being blocked by set
1 and NOT by set 2?
As you mentioned, we should expect
Thanks Matus.
Yes, I am aware about the documentation which you quoted (and which I quoted).
But how do you explain that the domain `firebaseio.com` is being blocked by set
1 and NOT by set 2?
As you mentioned, we should expect `server=/firebaseio.com/#` to lookup the
domain from `8.8.8.8`.
On 18.03.24 09:41, Elias LA via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
In mydnsmasq.conffile, I have either one of two sets of rules:
# Set 1:
no-resolv
server=8.8.8.8
server=/firebaseio.com/#
address=/*.firebaseio.com/
# Set 2:
no-resolv
server=8.8.8.8
server=/firebaseio.com/8.8.8.8
Dear Dnsmasq team,
I have a question which I hope someone can kindly clarify:
In mydnsmasq.conffile, I have either one of two sets of rules:
# Set 1:
no-resolv
server=8.8.8.8
server=/firebaseio.com/#
address=/*.firebaseio.com/
# Set 2:
no-resolv
server=8.8.8.8
I think I found the change:
git diff eb92fb3 efbf80be src/config.h
diff --git a/src/config.h b/src/config.h
index 37b374e..1e7b30f 100644
--- a/src/config.h
+++ b/src/config.h
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
#define CHILD_LIFETIME 150 /* secs 'till terminated (RFC1035 suggests >
120s) */
#define
I tried to increase the --edns-packet-max=1450, did not work, set it to
2048 now resolution seems to work. Interestingly only temporarily, because
this appears in the dnsmasq log soon
reducing DNS packet size for nameserver 10.101.255.253 to 1232
and the resolution is not working again.
13 matches
Mail list logo
