If there is no nameservers installed, using
evdns_base_nameserver_ip_add(), than evdns_base_resume() will SEGFAULT,
because of NULL dereference in evdns_requests_pump_waiting_queue()
Conflicts:
evdns.c
If an evdns_getaddrinfo timeout happens while pending_cb is set, and
a callback is about to run, but we get a call to
evdns_getaddrinfo_gotresolve before it finishes.
Github issue #60. Thanks to Greg Hazel for patch and patience.
Otherwise, requests initially sent to a failing nameserver would
stay there indefinitely, even if other nameservers would work.
Fix for sourceforge bug 3518439
When a nameserver is down, we periodically try sending a "probe"
message to that nameserver to see if it has come back up. If a
nameserver comes up, we cancel any pending probe messages.
Cancelling a probe message while handling the probe's response would
result in a access-after-free or a double-free, so when we notice that
we're about to call a nameserver up because of having received a probe
from it, we need to check whether current response is the response
from the probe.
There was a case where we didn't to that, though: when the resolver
gave us an unusual error response to our request that it resolve
google.com. This is pretty rare, but apparently it can happen with
some weird cacheing nameservers -- the one on the mikrotik router, for
example. Without this patch, we would crash with a NULL pointer
derefernce.
Thanks to Hannes Sowa for finding this issue and helping me track it
down.
Sometimes DNS reply has nothing but query section. It does not look like
error, so it should be treated as NODATA with TTL=0 as soon as there is
no SOA record to deduce negative TTL from.
Previously, once the callback was scheduled, it was unsafe to cancel
a request, but there was no way to tell that. Now it is safe to
cancel a request until the callback is invoked, at which point it
isn't.
Found and diagnosed by Denis Bilenko.
Remember, the code
int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) {
return a < b;
}
is buggy, since the C integer promotion rules basically turn it into
int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) {
return ((unsigned)a) < b;
}
and we really want something closer to
int is_less_than(int a, unsigned b) {
return a < 0 || ((unsigned)a) < b;
}
.
Suggested by an example from Ralph Castain
Remember that in a fit of ANSI C compliance, Microsoft decided to
screw portability by renaming basically all the functions in unistd.h to
get prefixed with an understore.
For some reason, mingw didn't seem to mind, but at least some people's
compilers did: see bug 3044490.
