On 03/17/2017 12:58 PM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:33:14 -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
It was pointed out here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331796#c4
that we shouldn't be adding a "no-resolv" to the dnsmasq.conf file for a network if there isn't any <forwarder> element that specifies an IP address but no qualifying domain. If there is such an element, it will handle all DNS requests that weren't otherwise handled by one of the forwarder entries with a matching domain attribute. If not, then DNS requests that don't match the domain of any <forwarder> would not be resolved if we added no-resolv.
So, only add "no-resolv" when there is at least one <forwarder> element that specifies an IP address but no qualifying domain. ... diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver.c b/src/network/bridge_driver.c index c5ec282..32c5ab7 100644 --- a/src/network/bridge_driver.c +++ b/src/network/bridge_driver.c @@ -1085,7 +1085,15 @@ networkDnsmasqConfContents(virNetworkObjPtr network, virBufferAddLit(&configbuf, "port=0\n");
if (wantDNS && network->def->dns.forwarders) { - virBufferAddLit(&configbuf, "no-resolv\n"); + /* addNoResolv should be set to true if there are any entries + * that specify an IP address for requests, but no domain + * qualifier (implying that all requests otherwise "unclaimed" + * should be sent to that address). if it is still false when + * we've looked at all entries, it means we still need the + * host's resolv.conf for some cases. + */ + bool addNoResolv = false; + for (i = 0; i < network->def->dns.nfwds; i++) { virNetworkDNSForwarderPtr fwd = &network->def->dns.forwarders[i];
@@ -1099,11 +1107,15 @@ networkDnsmasqConfContents(virNetworkObjPtr network, goto cleanup; virBufferAsprintf(&configbuf, "%s\n", addr); VIR_FREE(addr); + if (!fwd->domain) + addNoResolv = true; } else { /* "don't forward requests for this domain" */ virBufferAddLit(&configbuf, "#\n"); } } + if (addNoResolv) + virBufferAddLit(&configbuf, "no-resolv\n"); }
if (network->def->domain) {
So what if the network is isolated and supposed to only resolve names according to its database. Such network does not have any <forwarder/> element and yet no-resolve should be added in the configuration.
You forced me to remember that I had fixed exactly that hole a *long time* ago (far before <forwarder> was added). I looked it up and found commit 513122ae: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723862 which adds no-resolv if the network is isolated. I was momentarily afraid that the no-resolv added in that patch had been "messed with" at some later time, causing a regression in my fix, but found that it's still there (look around line 1216). So in the case of an isolated network, we still add no-resolv, no matter whether we've added it due to <forwarders> or not. But before we give up on this train of thought, is there maybe *some other* situation I haven't considered?