Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] (updated) additional parameters needed for dnsmasq

On 09/04/2012 11:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/22/2012 11:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 08/22/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 08/22/2012 10:59 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >>>> As I said in a previous message, dnsmasq is forwarding a number of >>>> queries upstream that should not be done. There still remains an MX >>>> query for a plain name with no domain specified that will be >>>> forwarded >>>> is dnsmasq has --domain=xxx --local=/xxx/ specified. This does not >>>> happen with no domain name and --local=// ... not a libvirt problem. >>>> >>> ACK and pushed with the above tweak, and with adding you to AUTHORS >>> (let >>> us know if you prefer any other spelling or email address; the file is >>> in UTF-8). >> Oh, and now that I've already pushed, I have a high-level question: >> what >> is the minimum version of 'dnsmasq' that supports the command-line >> syntax that this patch introduces? >> >> +--local=// --domain-needed --filterwin2k \ >> >> If older dnsmasq doesn't recognize --local=// or the new >> --domain-needed >> or --filterwin2k options, then we either need to make this code >> conditional based on probing 'dnsmasq --help' at startup, or else >> change >> the spec file to require a larger minimum version of dnsmasq (we >> already >> require 2.41 for other reasons). > Just as I feared, we introduced a regression: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854137 > > Apparently, --filterwin2k disables features needed by Windows guests. > Gene, what is the benefit vs. cost of adding this flag? I'm trying to > figure out whether we need to expose it as something user-configurable, > or whether we should just revert back to the pre-patch version that did > not supply that option. > I already had some second thoughts about --filterwin2k but you had pushed it. "--filterwin2k" should be removed.