From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SUBJ_OBFU_PUNCT_FEW,SUBJ_OBFU_PUNCT_MANY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6203 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2020 21:32:30 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Aug 2020 21:32:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 15875 invoked by uid 550); 24 Aug 2020 21:32:28 -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 15857 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2020 21:32:27 -0000 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:32:15 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20200824213215.GL3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <5232EC15-7E60-4D1F-BF3B-C31BFF998C06@rb67.eu> <20200824161646.GH3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200824164326.GI3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87mu2jycum.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mu2jycum.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Incompatible behaviour of res_query(3) w.r.t. NXDOMAIN On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:04:49PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Rich Felker: > > > Hmm, I think in this case the "better" might be sufficient that we > > want to keep it and pressure other implementations to change too. A > > program performing a lookup where the result is NxDomain may very well > > want to know whether that's an authenticated (by DNSSEC) NxDomain or > > one in an insecure zone. Returning an error to the caller with no > > packet contents discards this critical data. > > Isn't this the behavior you'd get with res_send? > > I think such error translation is precisely the point of the res_query > convenience function (along with the implicit construction of the > query packet). Does such a distinction exist? I thought res_query was just equivalent to res_mkquery+res_send and that calling res_send directly would get you the same errors. If they are different then I suspect some applications are doing the wrong thing calling res_query here and should be using res_mkquery+res_send... Rich