[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2014-01-13 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
Now that we can use bind-dynamic, I have nothing against setting that value instead of bind-interfaces, if it indeed solves the latest issues that were reported. However, I'd really appreciate if separate bugs could be opened rather than reopening this bug, it would make each individual issue

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2014-01-13 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Mathieu, I reopened this bug because it was never resolved... not just for the TFTP issue. Please see my #143 comment. If you want more feedback tell me what to send, but DNS never worked properly for me when dnsmasq and nm-dnsmasq are both running. -- You received this bug notification

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2013-12-22 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Thomas, yup, TFTP appears to be working fine with bind-dynamic. I'll test if re-enabling dns=dnsmasq in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf along with bind-dynamic allows dnsmasq co-exist with nm-dnsmasq, and report back. Thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2013-12-22 Thread John Hupp
Through Raring and Saucy, my two modifications to the given LTSP-PNP setup have been: In /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager replace the bind-interfaces line with a bind-dynamic line. Edit /etc/dnsmasq.d/ltsp-server-dnsmasq.conf: comment out the port=0 line And those two mods still work for me in

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2013-12-21 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
The fix for this issue caused another regression, dnsmasq now doesn't function correctly as a tftp server either. I just tried Trusty (dnsmasq 2.68-1), and network manager ships /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager with: bind-interfaces So now dnsmasq only binds 127.0.0.1 for its tftp service: udp

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2013-12-21 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Or better yet, ltsp-server-standalone could Conflict: network-manager- local-resolver so that all LTSP sysadmins that use dnsmasq don't bother searching for a solution and manually editing configuration files... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2013-11-21 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
I'm still having problems with this on 14.04. After the default installation, I installed dnsmasq and DNS stopped working until system restart. Now it's only working for a few seconds after each network-manager restart! If I comment out #dns=dnsmasq in NetworkManager.conf, then everything is

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Thomas Hood
something that conflicts: the internal resolver of the samba4 packages Please file another report against samba4 describing the conflict with nm-dnsmasq. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Robin Battey
I would if I considered it a bug. (I didn't fully describe the current state of samba4, because I figured it was irrelevant: You can alter the interfaces it binds to, but not for *only* the dns resolver -- so currently, if you want samba4 listening on the wildcard address you'll need the dns

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Thomas Hood
If libnss-nm-dns would make it easier to introduce per-user caching and/or if it improved security then those would be important benefits. Currently nm-dnsmasq has caching disabled because of concerns about cache poisoning and information leakage.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Btw, named immediately notices because of the /etc/network/if-{up,down}.d/bind9 scripts that trigger rndc reconfig when an interface goes up or down. Ah, yes. There is also a hook at /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}.d/bind9. But named also notices immediately when I bring up an with NetworkManager. Any

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Whoa. When an interface is brought up with NM the scripts in /etc/network/if-up.d/ somehow get run (how?) but when an interface is downed with NM, the scripts in /etc/network/if-down.d/ don't get run (inconsistent!). -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-06 Thread Thomas Hood
Aha. /etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/01ifupdown run-partses /etc/network/if-up.d/ on up and /etc/network/if-post-down.d/ on down (which is actually post-down in ifupdown terminology). And there is no /etc/network/if-post-down.d/bind9 so named doesn't get nudged when NM takes down an interface.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-05 Thread Thomas Hood
The O'Reilly book _DNS and BIND_ says: [QUOTE] 10.4.3.2 Interface interval We've said already that BIND, by default, listens on all of a host's network interfaces. BIND 8 is actually smart enough to notice when a network interface on the host it's running on comes up or goes down. To do this, it

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-05 Thread Robin Battey
In response to #131 and #134 by Thomas: I would argue that will it conflict with anything that exists? is the wrong question, here. Certainly it will conflict in the future, and removing the users ability to run a DNS service on the wildcard address is suboptimal at best, even if they don't

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-04 Thread Thomas Hood
You may be right that developing a new nm-dns module would be easier than trying to enhance the existing dns module to support nonstandard ports. But the more immediately relevant comparison is the comparison between the current solution and any solution involving a new or an enhanced NSS module.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-04 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
To my own surprise I haven't seen any complaints related to the switch from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.1.1, even though I have been following AskUbuntu and ubuntuforums. It's possible that a large portion of Ubuntu users that are using dnsmasq as a DNS server, only use LTS releases, so complains might

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-04 Thread Thomas Hood
Btw please don't backport the current solution to Precise In comment #110 MTL said that backporting the fix to Precise *is* planned. Quantal includes dnsmasq 2.63 which has the new bind-dynamic option. In bind-dynamic mode dnsmasq works as it does in bind-interfaces mode but also updates its

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-04 Thread Thomas Hood
I wrote in comment #131: What benefits would the nm-dns module or the enhanced dns module give us relative to what we have now? One is: the ability to run nm-dnsmasq on another port, freeing up port 53 for BIND named listening on ALL:53. What else? I just installed bind9 and was surprised to

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-03 Thread Thomas Hood
Belated reply to Robin Battey's #116. My question in #115 was about alternative resolver libraries, not about DNS resolver libraries. There are libraries that play the same role as the whole glibc resolver. Generally these alternative resolver libraries include DNS resolvers and read

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-03 Thread Robin Battey
You've got the basic idea. The nsswitch.conf file is where Name Service services are configured, and hosts is one of them. DNS is *one* way to look up hosts, but so is files (/etc/hosts) and mdns4 (avahi). Anything that extends how names are translated to addresses should, imnho, be done through

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-03 Thread todaioan
alan_a...@yahoo.com -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting To manage notifications about this

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-02 Thread John Hupp
I thought I was done with this kind of issue, but I may be back for more. It turns out that the only LTSP client that boots normally is the one that I was doing all of the above troubleshooting on. Others that I have tried in my little 2-PC setup all stop at a blank/black screen after

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-02 Thread Thomas Hood
That the last syslog entries are made by ntpd doesn't necessarily mean that the machine is hanging because of ntpd. It could be hanging at the next step, for example. Bug #999725 reports that ntp doesn't work properly when it is started before NIS, which is not to be confused with DNS. Probably

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-12-02 Thread John Hupp
Agreed. And I had hoped that I could eliminate ntpd as the source of the problem by using a simple switch in the LTSP configuration to turn it off for the client. Unfortunately that does not seem to be effective in disabling ntpd. Troubleshooting that elsewhere . -- You received this bug

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-28 Thread John Hupp
RE Thomas Hood's #120: That is very interesting, though I admit it is near the outer limits of my current understanding. To address the only questions above: The problem is that the LTSP client, after successfully getting DHCP assignments, fails to download the pxelinux boot image. It reports

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-28 Thread Thomas Hood
the LTSP server defers to the router handling DHCP. OK, I get it. I don't understand what you said about standalone dnsmasq conflicting with network-manager's instance of dnsmasq when /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager is removed. When /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager is present, standalone

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-28 Thread John Hupp
Thanks for the explanation of how removal of /etc/dnsmasq.d/network- manager sets up a conflict between standalone dnsmasq and NM-dnsmasq. (But also see my surprising observation below.) Should this conflict be manifesting itself somehow? Everything seems to be working right now. Well, I am

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-28 Thread Thomas Hood
Question: Why did everything work on your machine when standalone dnsmasq wasn't in bind-interfaces mode but /etc/NM/NM.conf contained dns=dnsmasq? Hypothesis: Standalone dnsmasq started first; network-manager second. NM tried to start NM-dnsmasq but this failed because of the address conflict

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-22 Thread Thomas Hood
the current default installation wherein network-manager starts an instance of dnsmasq to act as a DHCP, DNS and TFTP server. NetworkManager starts an instance of dnsmasq to act only as a non- caching DNS nameserver forwarder. This instance listens only on the loopback interface 127.0.1.1. If

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-11-21 Thread John Hupp
I don't know how my case enters this discussion, but it is certainly connected to the current default installation wherein network-manager starts an instance of dnsmasq to act as a DHCP, DNS and TFTP server. I was troubleshooting an LTSP-PNP client boot problem under Lubuntu Quantal. I installed

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-10-16 Thread Svartalf
This is a bad idea as it's been implemented, guys- there's tons of local installations that use internal DNS (My CenturyLink router or my day- job's setup, for example...) that this flatly breaks out of box. You've got to do a bunch of manual interventions for MANY corporate desktop and home

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-10-16 Thread Thomas Hood
@Svartalf: Can you please describe in more technical detail what fails to work on the machines in question, and share with us what you know about the causes of these malfunctionings? Once we have some idea what you're talking about we can help you further. You wrote: there's tons of local

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-10-09 Thread Robin Battey
Are you sure? I am only aware of named.conf's listen-on { IP_ADDRESS; }. If there is a feature such as you describe then presumably named binds ALL:53 and then filters according to the addresses on the specified interfaces. Nope, I just verified, you're quite correct. I hadn't heard of it

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-10-02 Thread Thomas Hood
Yes, the 127.0.1.1:53 solution works so long as dnsmasq and others are run in bind-interfaces (or equivalent) mode. NM-dnsmasq currently (12.04) listens at 127.0.01:53 which prevents others from listening on either ALL:53 or lo:53, i.e., 127.0.0.1:53. The new (12.10) behavior allows others to

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-10-01 Thread Robin Battey
Another drawback is that you still need to manually configure bind (and others) to only listen on particular addresses. If you're using dhcp this presents a problem, because you don't actually know the address. With bind, this is okay, mostly, because you can say to listen on everything for a

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-09-26 Thread Robin Battey
I just read this entire chain, and I'm surprised not to see mention of using an NSS plugin, like Avahi (and ldap and NIS and /etc/hosts and DNS itself). I expect it would be simple enough to write a small NSS plugin that merely calls the NM-dnsmasq (running on localhost on a port other than 53)

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-09-14 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
Yes, it is. I'll provide a package with a bunch of related changes from Quantal; namely: - using dbus instead of a config file; - using a different dbus name than the default for dnsmasq; - restarting dnsmasq less often (fixed in using dbus, basically) - avoid refreshing interface config on every

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-09-14 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
AFAIK this is fixed in Quantal for dnsmasq as well as NetworkManager; barring a minor issue with NM that I'm about to upload a fix for... ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed = Fix Released ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise) Importance: Undecided = High ** Changed

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-08-31 Thread Thomas Hood
Is it really still a goal to get these fixes into Precise? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-08-25 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: djbdns (Ubuntu) Status: New = Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-08-25 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users. ** Changed in: djbdns (Ubuntu Precise) Status: New = Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Hood
Note: the dnsmasq.d file included in the new n-m release includes both bind-interfaces and except-interface=lo. This is already a big improvement. It allows standalone dnsmasq to run on a system with NM and nm-dnsmasq: standalone dnsmasq listens on interfaces other than lo and forwards queries to

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Hood
Changing status to in progress in case we still want to implement the idea in comment #88. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Hood
... would be what I suggest (but can't do myself). :) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-16 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Branch linked: lp:~network-manager/network-manager/ubuntu -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-16 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
This bug was fixed in the package network-manager - 0.9.6.0~git201207161259.00297f4-0ubuntu1 --- network-manager (0.9.6.0~git201207161259.00297f4-0ubuntu1) quantal; urgency=low * upstream snapshot 2012-07-16 12:59:59 (GMT) + 00297f49fbbe05c51c02da43cda254c35e053589 [ Edward

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-11 Thread Thomas Hood
Assuming that the plan in comment #88 will be implemented, the next step is to wait for dnsmasq 2.63 to get into the quantal repo. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-11 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
Well, first we'll ship the file for /etc/dnsmasq.d; changing it to bind- dynamic after the fact is quick. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/959037 Title: NM-controlled

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-07-10 Thread Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre
** Also affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu Precise) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: pdnsd (Ubuntu Precise) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: network-manager (Ubuntu Precise) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: pdns-recursor

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-28 Thread Thomas Hood
Simon wrote: change --bind-interfaces to --bind-dynamic as see how it goes. As discussed in bug #928524 and bug #231060 various packages will be including files in /etc/dnsmasq.d/ with bind-interfaces. I guess these will all later have to be changed to include bind-dynamic instead, unless

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-28 Thread Thomas Hood
In bug #928524 Stéphane Graber has written that even if Network Manager moves to using 127.0.0.2, which I believe is a good idea, it should still ship a dnsmasq.d config file containing 'bind-interfaces' So I gather that Stéphane doesn't necessarily disagree with what has been proposed here

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-26 Thread Thomas Hood
Bug #928524 is related insofar as it is proposed there (see comment #18) to adopt the solution of forcing standalone dnsmasq into bind-interfaces except-interface=lo modes by means of /etc/dnsmasq.d/network-manager. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
I can imagine that it will take a lot of care to avoid introducing races inside dnsmasq. Have I mentioned yet that Simon is a hero? Do we have to worry about races outside of dnsmasq? Suppose someone was running dnsmasq in unbound mode and has now switched to the new improved dnsmasq in

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Meanwhile my laptop has been working fine with two dnsmasq instances running in cascade. I'll try to subject this arrangement to more severe tests in the coming weeks. # netstat -nl46p | grep :53 tcp0 0 127.0.0.2:530.0.0.0:* LISTEN 7928/dnsmasq

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Simon Kelley
On 20/06/12 10:56, Thomas Hood wrote: I can imagine that it will take a lot of care to avoid introducing races inside dnsmasq. It's OK: notification of new interfaces comes via netlink, so it gets synchronised via the select() call just like everything else. Have I mentioned yet that Simon is

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Just checked pdnsd. I thought it would be affected since it also starts in server_ip=any mode by default; however the Debian package which is also in Universe includes server_ip=127.0.0.1 in /etc/pdnsd.conf. It therefore starts alongside nm-dnsmasq modified to listen on 127.0.0.2. So nothing

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
@Bert: Can you provide more information about the conflict with djbdns? The dnscache-run package, one of the binary packages built from djbdns source, is marked as Conflicting with resolvconf because it messes directly with /etc/resolv.conf --- see Debian bug report #582755. Its maintainers

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-20 Thread Thomas Hood
Next checked PowerDNS Recursor. The Debian package pdns-recursor is also available in Universe. Its default configuration is to listen only on 127.0.0.1:53 so it will also no longer conflict with nm-dnsmasq if the latter is moved to 127.0.0.2. /etc/powerdns/recursor.conf:

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Hood
Relevant to my question above: What would be the best way to implement this, Simon? is what Simon wrote in #928524 comment #12: --- BEGIN QUOTATION --- I'm wondering about adding a _third_ mode, which is has a desirable mixture of the properties of the current two (--bind-interfaces and NOT

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-18 Thread Thomas Hood
@Simon: This is pretty much what I had in mind (comment #88) as a long- term solution. How difficult do you think that this would be? (Moving nm-dnsmasq listening to another port than 53 is at best a veeery long-term solution since it requires first getting glibc enhanced, then getting all other

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-18 Thread Simon Kelley
On 18/06/12 21:08, Thomas Hood wrote: @Simon: This is pretty much what I had in mind (comment #88) as a long- term solution. How difficult do you think that this would be? Don't know. I'm working on it now: seems to be behaving: dnsmasq: new IPv4: 192.168.3.1 dnsmasq: new IPv6:

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-16 Thread Thomas Hood
I now agree (see Mathieu's comment #30) that the most expedient thing to do is * update dnsmasq to a new release based on the latest code in Simon's git repo; * patch the two lines in the n-m code such that (1) nm-dnsmasq listens on 127.0.0.2 instead of 127.0.0.1 and (2) NM registers 127.0.0.2

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Alkis: This relies on the assumption that NM's configuration text can be dropped in alongside whatever other configuration text is present and that dnsmasq will still work properly. This assumption is, er, questionable. And this is also one answer to my question in #72. The dnsmasq cascade may

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
This assumption is, er, questionable. True, but if you don't mind, let's examine that question a bit. This is the NM-spanwed command line: /usr/sbin/dnsmasq --no-resolv --keep-in-foreground --no-hosts --bind-interfaces --pid-file=/var/run/sendsigs.omit.d/network-manager.dnsmasq.pid

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
(Another minor problem with your proposal as you phrased it is the following. The existence of /etc/init.d/dnsmasq does not entail that the dnsmasq is installed. The package could have been removed and not purged.) Correct, but then I wonder what prevents dnsmasq from running even if it's

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
--conf-file not needed Well, this is used to make nm-dnsmasq read the configuration file that has been dynamically generated by NM. Without this you will have to do something like the following. ln -s /var/run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf /etc/dnsmasq.d/nm-dns- dnsmasq.conf NM kills and starts a

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
NM kills and starts a new dnsmasq process every time this file changes. Will that be a problem for your LTSP setup where dnsmasq is also the DHCP server? The most time consuming operation that dnsmasq does in our setups is sending the kernel/initrd via TFTP. That takes a few seconds. If the

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
The real dnsmasq command line is: /usr/sbin/dnsmasq -x /var/run/dnsmasq/dnsmasq.pid -u dnsmasq -r /var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf -7 /etc/dnsmasq.d,.dpkg-dist,.dpkg-old,.dpkg-new I think that NM would just need to update /var/run/dnsmasq/resolv.conf instead of creating+updating

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
$ cat /run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf server=/17.172.in-addr.arpa/172.17.1.2 server=192.168.1.254 server=... The first server= line reflects the fact that I am connected to a VPN. This can't be expressed in resolv.conf syntax. No doubt dnsmasq could be enhanced to poll its configuration files. But it

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Simon Kelley
On 15/06/12 10:19, Thomas Hood wrote: $ cat /run/nm-dns-dnsmasq.conf server=/17.172.in-addr.arpa/172.17.1.2 server=192.168.1.254 server=... The first server= line reflects the fact that I am connected to a VPN. This can't be expressed in resolv.conf syntax. FYI only, It's possible to

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Simon Kelley
On 15/06/12 08:04, Thomas Hood wrote: Alkis: This relies on the assumption that NM's configuration text can be dropped in alongside whatever other configuration text is present and that dnsmasq will still work properly. This assumption is, er, questionable. There was an attempt, some time

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Dnsmasq cascade (#72) has maintenance advantages. For example it makes it easy for the distromaestros to switch to other software to perform the same limited task as nm-dnsmasq now performs, without any chance of disturbing admins' standalone dnsmasq setups. Does dnsmasq-cascade have drawbacks

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
-- Solvable by moving nm-dnsmasq to another port: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14242 BTW, the required enhancement to glibc shouldn't be difficult to implement. I expect that all we'd have to do is change the following code (around line 313 in resolv/res_init.c) so that it

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Simon Kelley
On 15/06/12 15:01, Thomas Hood wrote: -- Solvable by moving nm-dnsmasq to another port: There's one more snippet after this dealing with the IPv6 case. That should be it. Any obvious problems I'm overlooking? Applications that don't use the libc resolver? I don't know if such exist be

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Thomas Hood
Applications that don't use the libc resolver? Hmm, yes. There are several alternative resolver libraries (adns, firedns, djbdns, ...) and even if we fixed them all so that they could read the extended resolv.conf syntax then statically linked third party binaries would still break. So having

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-15 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Would it be remotely possible in the future for the problem to be addressed inside libc itself? Other people not using NM or dnsmasq would still welcome the split VPN resolving, right? Should we file a wishlist bug request for it? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
** Summary changed: - NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from running, yet network-manager doesn't Conflict with their packages + NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team,

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
With the latest dnsmasq code the two dnsmasq instances appear to work correctly in all combinations. I just tested as follows. * With both dnsmasqs running, nm-dnsmasq forwards to the upstream nameservers and listens on 127.0.0.2; standalone dnsmasq forwards to 127.0.0.2 and listens on

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
I was reading about bind-interfaces at http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/FAQ and I'm wondering, are there any use cases that will have problems with bind-interfaces and the standalone dnsmasq instance? * Suppose a teacher boots her laptop (==LTSP server) without a network cable plugged

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
@Alkis: IIUC dnsmasq in bind-interfaces mode will not start to listen on any addresses assigned to interfaces after dnsmasq has started. So, yes, she would have to restart standalone dnsmasq if she wants it to listen on those newly assigned addresses. IIUC the only way to avoid this is to run

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
Thanks, so until the #3 idea is implemented (if ever), I'll be disabling the NM-spawned dnsmasq. But of course the #2 idea is good enough for many cases, thank you all for your work on this. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is

Re: [Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Simon Kelley
On 14/06/12 16:06, Thomas Hood wrote: @Alkis: IIUC dnsmasq in bind-interfaces mode will not start to listen on any addresses assigned to interfaces after dnsmasq has started. So, yes, she would have to restart standalone dnsmasq if she wants it to listen on those newly assigned addresses.

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Thomas Hood
Regarding #3, I've filed a wish in upstream's bugzilla: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14242 #2 is easy to implement and does solve the problem of standalone dnsmasq not starting on installation in the presence of NM+dnsmasq. What I am now wondering is how useful the resulting

[Bug 959037] Re: NM-controlled dnsmasq prevents other DNS servers from starting

2012-06-14 Thread Alkis Georgopoulos
What if NM always dropped whatever configuration file it needs in /etc/dnsmasq.d/nm.conf, and when NM was started, it would check if /etc/init.d/dnsmasq exists, * if yes, dnsmasq is installed, so it read the configuration file and there's no need to do anything, * if not, dnsmasq-base is