On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 12:12:50AM +0100, Geert Stappers via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:15:08AM +0800, zhangjiangyu via Dnsmasq-discuss > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:15:00PM +0800, Petr Menšík wrote: > > > > > > But I admit we should add at least the most obvious checks. Would you > > > please make the responses in ldns-testns server format, so it would > > > be easier to test it? It allows also encoding the body in hex format, so > > > invalid responses are broken as well. It would be easier to test the bad > > > behaviour and prepare fixes for them. Are those links leading to DNS in > > > wire format? It would be simpler to read if pcap with them were used, > > > wireshark would visualise those responses well. > > > > Yes, The message I provided is a wire format, > > but it is a bit different from the wire format, > > because the first four bytes are a length field. > > Ah, a length field, a sixtyfour bit length field. } Ah, a length field, a thirtytwo bit length field.
It took me a while to figure that it was, because it was not needed in the Python scripts. > > I removed the length field, I don't know where, but I did something simular in https://git.sr.ht/~stappers/cert_check_by_dnsmasq/commit/0806f6bf81d8d0aff6c18c53e0f703816520db55 Groeten Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
