From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: (qmail 19120 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 16:38:16 -0000
Received-SPF:  pass (mother.openwall.net: domain of lists.openwall.com
  designates 195.42.179.200 as permitted sender)
  receiver=inbox.vuxu.org; client-ip=195.42.179.200
  envelope-from=<musl-return-15676-ml=inbox.vuxu.org@lists.openwall.com>
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 13 Apr 2020 16:38:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 20218 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2020 16:38:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 20196 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 16:38:13 -0000
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:38:00 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: Christian <list-christian@web.de>, musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20200413163800.GV11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <9832107bf742db3145a3960c28cde867f924fe1f.camel@web.de>
 <4524b127ea99b2d1edcd8c91555a9af21e46a9b3.camel@web.de>
 <87imi32xj1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87imi32xj1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Resolver routines, Postfix DNSSEC troubles - how to check
 for incompatibilities?

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 05:52:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Christian:
> 
> > So Viktor did some digging:
> >
> > "The comment on line 25:
> >
> > https://github.com/runtimejs/musl-libc/blob/master/include/resolv.h#L25
> >
> > is not encouraging.  It suggests that _res is unused. If so, Postfix
> > DNS does not work correctly with this C library.  And not just for DANE, since Postfix is also unable to to control RES_DEFNAMES and RES_DNSRCH.
> 
> Are these changes to the RES_DEFNAMES and RES_DNSRCH flags really
> necessary? Why doesn't Postfix use res_query (or perhaps res_send) as
> appropriate?

But to actually answer these questions, modifying the flags is
presumably because traditional req_query builds an rfc1035 query or
edns query based on these flags derived from from resolv.conf, and
Postfix either assumes or wants to support the case where resolv.conf
is not already configured for edns, perhaps because it was generated
by a dhcp client.

Rich