On Fri 29/11/2019 21:35, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:27:57AM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 07:28:20AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 07:02:27AM +0100, Björn Ketelaars wrote:
> > > > I experienced no regression while using the free wifi service of the
> > > > Dutch railways, which is known to do strange things with DNS.
> > >
> > > Thanks for testing. The Dutch railways have been a great inspiration
> > > to unwind work, as florian@ can telll you :-)
> >
> > They have got to be good at *something*. Not sure if it's their core
> > business to annoy the hell out of me, but hey...
> >
> > Only joking, overall I'm quite happy with the Dutch railway. I use
> > them every work day and they get me where I need to go most of the
> > time.
> >
> > --
> > I'm not entirely sure you are real.
> >
>
> And here's a rebased diff for your convenience,
The rebased diff results in a different behaviour than the first diff.
More precise, 'force acceptbogus forwarder' is not respected any more
resulting in issues with DNSSEC.
I compared the old- and the rebased diff and noticed that some bits have
been left out. Functionality is restored after applying the diff below.
diff --git sbin/unwind/unwind.c sbin/unwind/unwind.c
index 5a97dcccec4..4687a7cc122 100644
--- sbin/unwind/unwind.c
+++ sbin/unwind/unwind.c
@@ -675,6 +675,12 @@ merge_config(struct uw_conf *conf, struct uw_conf *xconf)
uw_forwarder, entry);
}
+ for (n = RB_MIN(force_tree, &xconf->force); n != NULL; n = nxt) {
+ nxt = RB_NEXT(force_tree, &xconf->force, n);
+ RB_REMOVE(force_tree, &xconf->force, n);
+ RB_INSERT(force_tree, &conf->force, n);
+ }
+
free(xconf);
}
