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=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 23591 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2021 20:27:36 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 23 Jul 2021 20:27:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7665 invoked by uid 550); 23 Jul 2021 20:27:30 -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 7640 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2021 20:27:29 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ly6a/+V3qbsP8PmDmTJxpDTgUUM7XynoD37bjbwTDZo=; b=Akq418WlFCgz0+cSdQCNPTNG9bDUytolk2neR5PmIlAP86n1R2TU/015WUiFnH+x1c vnJaAy+MA4i01suUC9HKtyxPJH9UilcXfL1IKBs8tRKTsmWI6bBdxDSTFPKz7LVmTT2p 2HXjdFDfqn92maw0c6aq0GB0Akhp6QZ1LDbJEwuAi7kH2d/YngvueaYOe5SandnsUYGV 8v+S+aExNupiS0IZ5sAKXZkIZV0Wrxvlju0Jge/6V7vi5W4Ni9QlOTTNbV39oNsBLpxj /vq7QGKCNE3kLojLzs83CKwkK7pKr6QIQUTalfdq2+7gN+VI3fW9XaYVkUZ6wBVbl+Yy 4mjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ly6a/+V3qbsP8PmDmTJxpDTgUUM7XynoD37bjbwTDZo=; b=LU5NzF8nmcs7gP87W1xiX9onsQVF97QSSDYEt2W3TkNI7T43+u2oQ051MKVDfg6gzF kCsz1K/GIUGgyQYktoRe89q0TnSg61zg8LUaafLlAqRN3Cq1fu1X8tyXuUC+ZuIoYgDW zimjBXAU8IbUMu0pRIS3HxfPx8G720bHcf2yheXiR2PdQ8N/PSjamyxuBiI1e2ITgkB5 YE3v18E7DUGHZFXGBSidOBUGM3ByxIxFzMQe+RiaDoyvXpUqHicYBA+z+Dh+cA9lvuG/ ymC+TWNCHjO73XWVcFQ+fIAxizIFYgnrN5Ebkv/FotVF+rlW8u+lHpB4qH9YYB573CRD T+8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IsQAMG8hGdIt7Rt0emOZPysoU0Zb4p6jfxM/EueUTkTxaQ+tf wy13fljfiZBSNrbzYk/fhcl71zTaxKV5w7jTIAvtssdD9/kR X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVMltg8cUwK1qJFGlI7uOIjJU3+U0VX2oNLSy0+j0YMxGrY1BkfkF2NuwpYrj39qHwnOGMHr47ae0tMZURNiU= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8642:0:b029:348:7bf1:efec with SMTP id a2-20020aa786420000b02903487bf1efecmr6028217pfo.49.1627072037703; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:27:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5463e48e-c6b7-f6e3-e405-6cf654b35c57@gmail.com> <20210719211225.GK13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> In-Reply-To: <20210719211225.GK13220@brightrain.aerifal.cx> From: Yuri Kanivetsky Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 23:25:36 +0300 Message-ID: To: musl@lists.openwall.com Cc: "Olivier A." Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [musl] getaddrinfo() fails for domains with no AAAA records (regression?) Can you possibly provide some quotes from the RFCs? The closest I could find is: > QNAME=host3.example. QTYPE=A, QCLASS=IN > the answer will reflect "no error, but no data" > because there is no A RR set at '*.example.' https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4592 And it's from an example. Also, all other software I could get my hands on (basically, glibc, I guess) ignores NXDOMAIN for AAAA RRs. On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:12 AM Rich Felker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:07:21PM +0200, Olivier A. wrote: > > On 19/07/2021 14:58, Yuri Kanivetsky wrote: > > > [..] > > > > Hi, > > > > I notice that too. If both A and AAAA are sent and there is a > > response for A and NXDomain for AAAA > > > > musl-libc discard both results. It's the expected behaviour > > according to this commit: > > > > https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/src/network/lookup_name.c?id=5cf1ac2443ad0dba263559a3fe043d929e0e5c4c > > > > And it conform to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8020 > > > > It's was not the case before Alpine-Linux 3.13 > > > > But I also notice that if the DNS reply ServFailed instead of > > NXDomain for AAAA request, musl-libc retry 10 times, return 'bad > > address' and do not fallback to return a A record. > > > > According to > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4074#section-4.3 it's not > > expected. > > This behavior is necessary/mandatory to provide secure behavior under > DNSSEC. Otherwise a forged response (causing ServFail) would result in > a false answer returned to the application, indicating that only one > or the other exists, rather than the correct inconclusive answer. > > This is https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27929