[Dnsmasq-discuss] Feature request = block-conf

Ercolino de Spiacico bellocarico at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 4 20:12:28 UTC 2022


 >How does dnsmasq behave if there is a configuration error in the 
config >file elsewhere?  If the syntax is broken then it fails hard. 
Don't see >why this wouldn't be true of a suplemental config script 
being referred >to in the main one.And as to --fail-safe:  I don't see 
how this is >reasonable, as it will lead to undesirable operation and 
possibly even >broken clients if the mistake includes part of the dhcp 
 >configuration.Its annoying, but probably better for services not to 
 >start if they can't interpret/understand their starting stat

I appreciate the reason why this was originally designed to be the 
default behavior however please allow me: this conf-script might be is 
another beast.

I'm on a router developing this, the dnsmasq config is read at boot from 
the content of a nvram variable. By the time dnsmasq starts I must 
already have this conf-script target created, the USB mounting comes way 
after everything else and the script booting process is screwed; NTP 
doesn't sync, clients don't get an IP... you name it. Also if the device 
has no USB this needs to be referenced and created in /tmp (RAM) at 
boot, this is via the init script that again is coming in a bit too late 
in the SoE. Until this file is created dnsmasq fails. Moreover there's 
an additional risk here, part of the config content is coming from 
Internet so outside the administrative domain. A typo by the list 
maintainer might cause havoc, most importantly, this is not necessary 
when the device is initially set up, it can come after months and affect 
a large number of devices at one.

I really don't want to sound insistent but let me put it this way, long 
time ago I brought up this very topic in the context of TFTP. If the 
destination folder of TFTP didn't exist it used to fail dnsmasq (big 
time on a router). Then fortunately the tftp-no-fail directive was 
introduced.

This conf-script is pretty much the same case but in a different 
context. If this extra info here above is still not enough I'll drop the 
ball, but I'm just making a final effort because I see value in it, 
that's all.

Regards



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list