[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-21 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker 
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 (not SERVFAIL) as an unsuccessful
  upstream response
- 2.77: 68f6312d4b: Stop treating SERVFAIL as a successful response from
  upstream servers.

 -- Christian Ehrhardt   Mon, 23 Oct
2017 08:32:22 +0200

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Xenial)
   Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-21 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker 
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 successful response from
  upstream servers.

 -- Christian Ehrhardt   Mon, 23 Oct
2017 08:48:44 +0200

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Zesty)
   Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-07 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
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 REFUSED; do echo
$((i++)); done

For the name served by 225 this is mostly at ~40 but for 226 more like ~0-6.
Anyway they all fail without the fix at some point.

After installing the fix from proposed I was able to do thousands of requests 
without any issue.
The SERVFAIL case works as well.

** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-xenial
** Tags added: verification-done verification-done-xenial

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  Fix Committed
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-07 Thread Andy Whitcroft 
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
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how
to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this
update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug,
mentioning the version of the package you tested and change the tag from
verification-needed-xenial to verification-done-xenial. If it does not
fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the
tag to verification-failed-xenial. In either case, details of your
testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification .  Thank you in
advance!

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Xenial)
   Status: In Progress => Fix Committed

** Tags removed: verification-done
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-xenial

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  Fix Committed
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-07 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
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 "/etc/bind/for.paelzertest1.lan";
 };
zone "1.168.192.in-addr.arpa" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/rev.paelzertest1.lan";
 };

The other one the same but with a 2 instead of a 1

Also the forwar/reverse zones with 1 on dns1 and 2 on dns2
/etc/bind/for.paelzertest2.lan:
$TTL 86400
@   IN  SOA pri.paelzertest1.lan. root.paelzertest1.lan. (
2011071001  ;Serial
3600;Refresh
1800;Retry
604800  ;Expire
86400   ;Minimum TTL
)
@   IN  NS pri.paelzertest1.lan.
@   IN  A  192.168.1.200
@   IN  A  192.168.1.201
pri IN  A  192.168.1.200
testIN  A  192.168.1.200

/etc/bind/rev.paelzertest1.lan:
$TTL 86400
@   IN  SOA pri.paelzertest1.lan. root.paelzertest1.lan. (
2011071002  ;Serial
3600;Refresh
1800;Retry
604800  ;Expire
86400   ;Minimum TTL
)
@   IN  NS  pri.paelzertest1.lan.
@   IN  PTR paelzertest1.lan.
pri IN  A   192.168.1.200
testIN  A   192.168.1.201
200 IN  PTR pri.paelzertest1.lan.
201 IN  PTR test.paelzertest1.lan.

Disable recursion by adding the following to /etc/bind/named.conf.options:
allow-transfer {"none";};
allow-recursion {"none";};
recursion no;

$ sudo systemctl restart bind9

This is now having dns1 only answering for test.paelzertest1.lan and
refusing if asking dns2 for it (and vice versa)

Example:
$ dig test.paelzertest1.lan @192.168.122.225

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> test.paelzertest1.lan @192.168.122.225
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 62119
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;test.paelzertest1.lan. IN  A

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.122.225#53(192.168.122.225)
;; WHEN: Tue Nov 07 07:14:52 UTC 2017
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 50

ubuntu@zesty-dnsmasq-test:~$ dig test.paelzertest2.lan @192.168.122.225

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> test.paelzertest2.lan @192.168.122.225
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37335
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;test.paelzertest2.lan. IN  A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
test.paelzertest2.lan.  86400   IN  A   192.168.2.201

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
paelzertest2.lan.   86400   IN  NS  pri.paelzertest2.lan.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
pri.paelzertest2.lan.   86400   IN  A   192.168.2.200

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.122.225#53(192.168.122.225)
;; WHEN: Tue Nov 07 07:14:56 UTC 2017
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 100


Now we configure dnsmasq as dns server and with a config to reach out to those 
two dns servers we prepared.

$ sudo vim /etc/resolv.dnsmasq.conf
nameserver 192.168.122.79
nameserver 192.168.122.225
$ sudo dnsmasq --resolv-file=/etc/resolv.dnsmasq.conf --no-hosts --no-daemon 
--log-queries

This should give you a dnsmasq asking our two servers, running locally (in 
foreground with debug enabled).
On a second console on the test system with dnsmasq now use dig to query the 
dnsmasq that will then ask the two binds we have.

So for something that fails for sure on both we get:
$ dig foo @127.0.0.1

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> foo @127.0.0.1
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 42311

On the server we see:
dnsmasq: query[A] foo from 127.0.0.1
dnsmasq: forwarded foo to 192.168.122.79
dnsmasq: forwarded foo to 192.168.122.225

That works for the Xenial Test.

Now this is a bit of a race, run sime loacl requests and sometimes you
get the combo:

$ dig test.paelzertest2.lan @127.0.0.1

; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> test.paelzertest2.lan @127.0.0.1
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 953
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

sever log:
dnsmasq: query[A] test.paelzertest2.lan from 127.0.0.1
dnsmasq: forwarded test.paelzertest2.lan to 192.168.122.79
dnsmasq: forwarded test.paelzertest2.lan to 192.168.122.225

This should not happen (and doesn't with the fix).

For Zesty to force the issue (since it has one of the two patches already) we 
need to force "SERVFAIL".
Unfortunately this fail has to be faster than the valid reply to trigger the 
race (it would then consider

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-06 Thread Martin Wilck 
@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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-06 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
@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 Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1726017

Title:
  dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-11-02 Thread Brian Murray 
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
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how
to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this
update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug,
mentioning the version of the package you tested and change the tag from
verification-needed-zesty to verification-done-zesty. If it does not fix
the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag
to verification-failed-zesty. In either case, details of your testing
will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification .  Thank you in
advance!

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Zesty)
   Status: In Progress => Fix Committed

** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-zesty

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  Fix Committed

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-27 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
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 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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

   * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is
  being changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification
  that dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
  zero-answer and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS
  server case. If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it
  is likely to be in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and
  successful replies.

  [Other Info]

  Original bug description follows.

  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-27 Thread Robie Basak 
** 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 the patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
+    if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
+    if other forwarders return valid responses.
  
-  * 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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
-if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
-if other forwarders return valid responses.
+    This breaks
+    the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web
+    browsing, email, and receiving updates.
  
-This breaks
-the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web 
-browsing, email, and receiving updates.
+  * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity
+    for users.
  
-  * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity 
-for users.
- 
-  * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
-a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
-responses.
+  * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
+    a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
+    responses.
  
  [Test Case]
  
-  * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
-should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
-could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
-IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
-return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the 
-domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
-"ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
-case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.
+  * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
+    should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
+    could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
+    IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
+    return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the
+    domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
+    "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
+    case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.
  
-Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.
+    Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.
  
-To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
-server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
-would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.
+    To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
+    server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
+    would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.
  
  [Regression Potential]
  
-  * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
-NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.
+  * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
+    NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.
+ 
+  * [racb] As the behaviour in the area of REFUSED and SERVFAIL is being
+ changed, it's probably worth checking during SRU verification that
+ dnsmasq correctly passes back successful, REFUSED, SERVFAIL, zero-answer
+ and 1+ answer responses in the simple, single upstream DNS server case.
+ If there is a regression introduced by these patches, it is likely to be
+ in the area of handling SERVFAIL, REFUSED and successful replies.
  
  [Other Info]
-  
+ 
  Original bug description follows.
- 
  
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.
  
  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local network,
  and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router, responsible to answer
  queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server returns these in the
  order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal server replies REFUSED to
  queries about external domains.
  
  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as various
  other OSes.
  
  It does not work with Ubuntu

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-27 Thread Martin Wilck 
** 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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
+if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
+if other forwarders return valid responses.
+ 
+This breaks
+the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web 
+browsing, email, and receiving updates.
+ 
+  * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity 
+for users.
+ 
+  * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
+a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
+responses.
+ 
+ [Test Case]
+ 
+  * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
+should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
+could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
+IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
+return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the 
+domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
+"ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
+case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.
+ 
+Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.
+ 
+To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
+server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
+would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.
+ 
+ [Regression Potential]
+ 
+  * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
+NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.
+ 
+ [Other Info]
+  
+ Original bug description follows.
+ 
+ 
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.
  
  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local network,
  and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router, responsible to answer
  queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server returns these in the
  order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal server replies REFUSED to
  queries about external domains.
  
  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as various
  other OSes.
  
  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.
  
  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to
  
  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html
  
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6
  
- According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
+ According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b
  
  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.
  
  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf
  
  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  
  [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 patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
 if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
 if other forwarders return valid responses.

 This breaks
 the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web 
 browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity 
 for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-27 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker 
** 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 of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1726017

Title:
  dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-27 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
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 would be a great help
for me ( I can add regression risk if you are unsure, but especially
"how to reproduce" is often best by the reporter).

[1]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[2]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#SRU_Bug_Template

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Xenial)
   Status: New => In Progress

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Zesty)
   Status: New => In Progress

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-26 Thread Martin Wilck 
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:
  dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  New
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  New

Bug description:
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1726017] Re: dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

2017-10-23 Thread ChristianEhrhardt 
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 upstream 
response
2.77: 68f6312d4b: Stop treating SERVFAIL as a successful response from upstream 
servers.

So:
- Xenial is lacking both
- Zesty is lacking the second
- Artful is good

Since I rarely patch dsnsmasq I wanted to ask for a check before going to an 
SRU with that.
I provided a ppa at [1] with test builds for Xenial and Zesty.

If you could try those out that would be very kind.

[1]: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/3003

** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Zesty)
   Importance: Undecided
   Status: New

** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Xenial)
   Importance: Undecided
   Status: New

** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
   Status: New => Fix Released

-- 
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 resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  New
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  New

Bug description:
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp