This bug was fixed in the package dnsmasq - 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.4
---
dnsmasq (2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.4) xenial; urgency=medium
* Fix replying prematurely if one of many servers replies REFUSED
(LP: #1726017) by adding two upstream patches.
- 2.76: 4ace25c5d6: Treat REFUSED
This bug was fixed in the package dnsmasq - 2.76-5ubuntu0.2
---
dnsmasq (2.76-5ubuntu0.2) zesty; urgency=medium
* Fix replying prematurely if one of many servers replies REFUSED
(LP: #1726017) by adding an upstream patche.
- 2.77: 68f6312d4b: Stop treating SERVFAIL as a
dns1: 192.168.122.225
dns1: 192.168.122.226
xenial: 192.168.122.222
Setting up as described in c #8
As before things depend on the order, so asking the second mostly fails
while for the first it works mostly. One can use a loop like:
i=0; until dig test.paelzertest1.lan @127.0.0.1 | grep
Hello Martin, or anyone else affected,
Accepted dnsmasq into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.4 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Ok testing zesty on my own then, verified with three KVM guests:
dns1 192.168.122.79
dns2 192.168.122.225
zesty 192.168.122.220
# basic servers
$ sudo apt-get install bind9 bind9utils bind9-doc
/etc/bind/named.conf.local:
zone "paelzertest1.lan" {
type master;
file
@Christian: I can't do Zesty short term, I don't use it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1726017
Title:
dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking
@Martin - you were so active (thanks a lot) could you also verify that
in Zesty-proposed?
@SRU-Team where is the Xenial SRU - any reason to block it that I
missed?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in
Hello Martin, or anyone else affected,
Accepted dnsmasq into zesty-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/2.76-5ubuntu0.2 in a few
hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Ok, thanks for the SRU template update Martin.
Thanks for the MP review Robie.
Yes Robie, on proposed verification we need to do a few extra things to
be sure. Thanks for the note in the SRU Template.
Thereby uploaded and ready for review by the SRU Team now.
--
You received this bug
** Description changed:
+ [Impact]
- [Impact]
+ * DNS name resolution fails in certain network configurations, where
+ different DNS servers are responsible for different domains and one or
+ more servers reply REFUSED to queries that regard other domains than
+ their own. Without
** Description changed:
+
+ [Impact]
+
+ * DNS name resolution fails in certain network configurations, where
+different DNS servers are responsible for different domains and one or
+more servers reply REFUSED to queries that regard other domains than
+their own. Without the
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+git/dnsmasq/+merge/332888
** Merge proposal linked:
https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+git/dnsmasq/+merge/332889
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
Thanks for the Check Martin.
I pushed merge proposals with my change so that one can double check for
issues/mistakes.
Once they get approved this will enter the SRU [1] process.
If you could add an SRU Template [2] (to the head of the bug
description) in the time my MPs are in review that
I tried the package in my environment, removed the workaround I had for
the stock package, it worked.
Thanks!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1726017
Title:
Hi Martin,
thanks for your great pre-analysis.
I agree to the general issue and the changes are small enough to review
although the context it implies is a lot.
Also we need to be clear that this has two stages of not-correct:
2.76: 4ace25c5d6: Treat REFUSED (not SERVFAIL) as an unsuccessful
15 matches
Mail list logo
