** Description changed:

+ 
+ [Impact] 
+ 
+  * DNS name resolution fails in certain network configurations, where
+    different DNS servers are responsible for different domains and one or
+    more servers reply REFUSED to queries that regard other domains than
+    their own. Without the patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
+    if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
+    if other forwarders return valid responses.
+ 
+    This breaks
+    the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web 
+    browsing, email, and receiving updates.
+ 
+  * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity 
+    for users.
+ 
+  * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
+    a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
+    responses.
+ 
+ [Test Case]
+ 
+  * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
+    should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
+    could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
+    IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
+    return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the 
+    domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
+    "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
+    case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.
+ 
+    Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.
+ 
+    To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
+    server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
+    would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.
+ 
+ [Regression Potential]
+ 
+  * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
+    NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.
+ 
+ [Other Info]
+  
+ Original bug description follows.
+ 
+ 
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.
  
  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local network,
  and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router, responsible to answer
  queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server returns these in the
  order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal server replies REFUSED to
  queries about external domains.
  
  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as various
  other OSes.
  
  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.
  
  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to
  
  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html
  
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6
  
- According to these sources, the bug was introduced with 
+ According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b
  
  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.
  
  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf
  
  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1726017

Title:
  dnsmasq prematurely returns REFUSED, breaking resolver

Status in dnsmasq package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in dnsmasq source package in Xenial:
  In Progress
Status in dnsmasq source package in Zesty:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  
  [Impact] 

   * DNS name resolution fails in certain network configurations, where
     different DNS servers are responsible for different domains and one or
     more servers reply REFUSED to queries that regard other domains than
     their own. Without the patch, dnsmasq returns a negative reply to
     if only one such negative answer is received from a forwarder, even
     if other forwarders return valid responses.

     This breaks
     the resolver and practically all internet connectivity, including web 
     browsing, email, and receiving updates.

   * This should be backported to stable to fix internet connectivity 
     for users.

   * The patch fixes the problem by querying all servers and only returning
     a negative reply to the requestor only if *all* forwarders return negative
     responses.

  [Test Case]

   * It should be possible to test this in a virtual network. One DNS server
     should be responsible for queries to the outside world, and the other one
     could be a DHCP/DNS instance (perhaps dnsmasq, also) that handles internal
     IP addresses and names. It's important that at least one of these servers
     return REFUSED to queries that don't belong into its realm (assuming the 
     domain name is "my.net", the server for "my.net" would reply REFUSED to
     "ubuntu.com" and every other domain. I am not sure if this is normally the
     case, all I can say is that my Linux-based ASUS router does it.

     Connect an Ubuntu VM to this network.

     To aggravate the problem, the DHCP server would put the internal DNS
     server first in the nameservers field. If that's the case, the problem
     would also occur if the client used "strict-order" in dnsmasq.conf.

  [Regression Potential]

   * I don't see any. Would there be networks where admins rely upon getting
     NXDOMAIN back if just one server fails for a DNS query? I don't know.

  [Other Info]
   
  Original bug description follows.

  
  Seen with dnsmasq 2.75-1ubuntu0.16.04.3, after Trusty->Xenial update.

  In my local network, I have two DNS servers; 192.168.1.1 is the local
  DHCP/DNS server configured to reply to queries inside the local
  network, and 192.168.1.4 is the forwarder in my DSL Router,
  responsible to answer queries about the outside world. THe DHCP server
  returns these in the order 192.168.1.4,192.168.1.1. The internal
  server replies REFUSED to queries about external domains.

  This configuration has worked well with Ubuntu 14.04 and other Linux
  Distros (using Fedora and OpenSUSE internally here), as well as
  various other OSes.

  It does not work with Ubuntu 16.04. NetworkManager's dnsmasq instance
  pushes the REFUSED reply from 192.168.1.1 to applications and ignores
  the successful reply from 2.168.1.4. This causes all DNS queries to
  external servers to fail.

  I believe this is fixed in dnsmasq 2.76 and related to

  http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-
  discuss/2016q1/010263.html

  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=commitdiff;h=68f6312d4bae30b78daafcd6f51dc441b8685b1e
  http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=4ace25c5d6

  According to these sources, the bug was introduced with
  
http://thekelleys.org.uk/gitweb/?p=dnsmasq.git;a=object;h=51967f9807665dae403f1497b827165c5fa1084b

  In my local setup at least, I can work around the problem by using the
  "strict-order" option to dnsmasq.

  echo strict-order >/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/order.conf

  But that's not a general solution. If dnsmasq has several forwarders,
  and some return SERVFAIL or REFUSED and others return SUCCESS, the
  successful answer should be returned to clients, independent of the
  strict-order setting.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsmasq/+bug/1726017/+subscriptions

-- 
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to     : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Reply via email to