[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH 3] Some upstream replies not being logged
Simon Kelley
simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Wed Sep 1 20:24:38 UTC 2021
On 01/09/2021 12:45, Dominik DL6ER wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 21:09 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> I've tagged 2.86rc2. I've systematically tested the affected code,
>> and we're dog-fooding it now. It would be good to get as much other
>> testing in as possible before the 2.86.
>
> We have automated CI testing putting a lot of queries (and different
> query types) through it and nothing unexpected happened.
> We've added the patch into our beta testing so we have at least a few
> dozen additional testers of the new code on our side, too.
>
> I've seen two minor things but this is really nit-picky:
>
>> dig TYPE65 https.dns.netmeister.org
>
> leads to
>
>> reply https.dns.netmeister.org is type=65
>
> whereas I'd consider
>
>> reply https.dns.netmeister.org is [type=65]
>
> slightly more elegant because it is the type of the reply, not the
> content. The necessary change would be querystr(NULL, aqtype) ->
> querystr("", aqtype) in the "else" branch of "if (aqtype == T_TXT)" but
> that's entirely your call.
For consistency if we know the type we do
reply https.dns.netmeister.org is <TXT>
so if we don't know the type we should do
reply https.dns.netmeister.org is <type=65>
I've implemented that.
>
> Also, DNSSEC signed TXT records were not logged as such with log-
> queries=extra. print_txt() needs secflag for this. Patch attached.
>
Patch applied. Removing the declaration for int i breaks when building
DNSSEC code, so I changed that to use the j counter variable instead.
> I'll report back if anything odd comes up. Silence will be a good
> thing.
Great, thanks for your help. It's all running fine here too.
I tagged 2.86rc3 for completeness.
Simon.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss
mailing list