Hi Rich, I tested your patch against my new (high res clock_realtime 100nsec) and my old (low res 1msec) code and in both cases it's working, no more problems. Many Thanks Sascha Am Fr., 3. Juni 2022 um 14:34 Uhr schrieb Rich Felker : > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 08:27:04AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 12:28:40AM +0200, Sascha Braun wrote: > > > Hi Rich, > > > > > > I think I narrowed the thing down. Below is a dump of what happens in a > > > 'normal' situation and what happened when the sporadic issue appeared. > > > > > > Normal: > > > begin lookup3... > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350808040400000000000000008.8.4.4:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d0000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 02000035d043dede00000000000000 > 00208.67.222.222:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d0000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350909090900000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d0000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350808040400000000000000008.8.4.4:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d00001c0001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 02000035d043dede00000000000000 > 00208.67.222.222:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d00001c0001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350909090900000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d00001c0001 > > > __syscall_recv begin EP[0.0.0.0:0] > > > __syscall_recv'd_internal [020000000000000000000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > > ecea818000010001000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d0000010001c00c00010001000000390004d83ad4840000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > > > __syscall_recv begin EP[9.9.9.9:53] > > > __syscall_recv'd_internal [020000350909090900000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > > ecea818000010001000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d00001c0001c00c001c00010000003400102a0014504001080800000000000020040000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 > > > connect:0200ffffd83ad4840000000000000000 > > > connect:0a00ffff000000002a00145040010808000000000000200400000000 > > > > > > So we did sent the bytes > > > ecea010000010000000000000377777706676f6f676c6503636f6d0000010001 and > the > > > other sequence (hex encoded, 2 characters per byte) to each of the DNS > and > > > we received back one 'short' and one 'long' reply from 9.9.9.9. > > > I guess the short one is IPv4, long one IPv6(?). That's the case with > all > > > successful lookups, i.e. the 99% ok ones - (at least) one short - (at > > > least) one long. > > > > > > Now the problematic one: > > > > > > begin lookup1... > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350808040400000000000000008.8.4.4:53] > > > 94d90100000100000000000003777777037765620264650000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 02000035d043dede00000000000000 > 00208.67.222.222:53] > > > 94d90100000100000000000003777777037765620264650000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350909090900000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > 94d90100000100000000000003777777037765620264650000010001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350808040400000000000000008.8.4.4:53] > > > 94d901000001000000000000037777770377656202646500001c0001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 02000035d043dede00000000000000 > 00208.67.222.222:53] > > > 94d901000001000000000000037777770377656202646500001c0001 > > > __syscall_send_internal 020000350909090900000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > 94d901000001000000000000037777770377656202646500001c0001 > > > > > > __syscall_recv begin EP[0.0.0.0:0] > > > __syscall_recv'd_internal [020000000000000000000000000000009.9.9.9:53] > > > > 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 > > > __syscall_recv begin EP[9.9.9.9:53] > > > __syscall_recv'd_internal [020000350909090900000000000000008.8.4.4:53] > > > > 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 > > > getaddrinfo1: Address in use > > > > > > We received two 'long' responses, one from 9.9.9.9; one from 8.8.4.4 > > > > > > All occurrences of the problem show this constellation - two 'long' > > > responses received. > > > As a note, of course my implementation of recv returns the correct > number > > > of bytes received. The zeros you see are only from the dump function, > it's > > > dumping the 512 byte buffer. > > > > > > I hope this is helpful in some manner. > > > > > > I came across this, I seems glibc had a similar issue (I did not look > > > in-depth, just want to share the link) > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044628 > > > https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/libc-alpha/2014-04/msg00321.html > > > > OK, I found your problem. It's that the query ids for both the A and > > AAAA are the same, probably because you have a low-resolution or > > non-working clock_gettime. If the host environment does not provide a > > way to get a high resolution clock, I think you should still apply a > > monotonic increasing increment of the nanoseconds on each call where > > the host environment's time did not increase so that the clock is > > strictly monotonic. However musl's resolver should also deal with this > > case since it's always possible to get identical query ids (with low > > probability). We should just check if they're equal, and if so, > > increment the second one. I'll write a patch to do this. > > See if the attached patch fixes it. > >