On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 09:59:22PM +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: > > On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 08:54:07PM +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: > >> Package: libc6 > >> Version: 2.9-9 > >> Severity: normal > >> > >> Hello, I was affected by the resolver bug that was solved in 2.9-7; as of > >> 2.9-9 > >> the resolver stopped working again. The automatic workaround that is > >> mentioned > >> in the changelog is not working, and "single-request" in resolv.conf > >> doesn't > >> seem to have any effect either. > >> > >> Here's a dump of the resolver trying to get the address of google.com: > >> > >> 14:11:00.754265 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 45448, offset 0, flags [DF], proto > >> UDP (17), length 60) > >> 10.0.0.3.60486 > 10.0.0.138.53: [udp sum ok] 39108+ A? www.google.com. > >> (32) > >> 14:11:00.754303 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 45449, offset 0, flags [DF], proto > >> UDP (17), length 60) > >> 10.0.0.3.60486 > 10.0.0.138.53: [udp sum ok] 48015+ AAAA? > >> www.google.com. (32) > >> 14:11:00.759312 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1324, offset 0, flags [none], > >> proto UDP (17), length 60) > >> 10.0.0.138.53 > 10.0.0.3.60486: [udp sum ok] 48015 NotImp q: AAAA? > >> www.google.com. 0/0/0 (32) > >> 14:11:00.817710 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1325, offset 0, flags [none], > >> proto UDP (17), length 144) > >> 10.0.0.138.53 > 10.0.0.3.60486: 39108 q: A? www.google.com. 5/0/0 > >> www.google.com. CNAME www.l.google.com.[|domain] > >> > >> The DNS server (it's my ADSL router) responds NotImp to the AAAA query (it > >> does > >> not support IPv6). The reply (CNAME) to the A query seems correct though. > >> > > > > Could you please try the glibc from http://temp.aurel32.net/glibc-test/ ? > > I have backported a few more patch from upstream, but I have no way to > > know if they change something or not. > > The option single-request works, the automagic workaround does not,
That's a good news. > i.e. I always see the two requests going out in parallel. > Actually I'm not sure I understand how it's supposes to work: if the > first request fails usually the caller gives up, no? The first request done by a program should timeout, and the second request by the same program should then be done sequentially, like when "single-request" is set. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
