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 30383 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 18:04:41 -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= Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 13 Apr 2020 18:04:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 4025 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2020 18:04:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 3997 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2020 18:04:38 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:04:25 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Christian Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200413180425.GW11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <9832107bf742db3145a3960c28cde867f924fe1f.camel@web.de> <4524b127ea99b2d1edcd8c91555a9af21e46a9b3.camel@web.de> <87imi32xj1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20200413163800.GV11469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <441f511075bfd135bda2cd3da337bf4572f47a4f.camel@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <441f511075bfd135bda2cd3da337bf4572f47a4f.camel@web.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 07:51:23PM +0200, Christian wrote: > Am Montag, den 13.04.2020, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker: > > 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 > > > > > > I can't tell you much on the coding or why it is this way. I am merely > a user that found the incompatibility. If this is of interest, you > might want to get in contact with Viktor, e.g. via the postfix users > mailing list. > > FYI: I just moved my config to a glibc setup in debian and it is > working without issues, hence confirming Viktors finding, that Postfix > won't work with musl Thanks. I'll see if I can reply into the postfix-users thread. Rich