Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1171254 > unrolled thread

Bug#1051817: unbound: local_datas without \4\n reuses last read buffer(?) and produces infinite error output

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1051817: unbound: local_datas without \4\n reuses last read buffer(?) and produces infinite error output Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2023-10-09 15:30 +0200
    Bug#1051817: unbound: local_datas without \4\n reuses last read buffer(?) and produces infinite error output наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz> - 2023-10-09 17:10 +0200
      Bug#1051817: unbound: local_datas without \4\n reuses last read buffer(?) and produces infinite error output Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2023-10-09 18:40 +0200

#1171254 — Bug#1051817: unbound: local_datas without \4\n reuses last read buffer(?) and produces infinite error output

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

> In trying to reduce another bug, I got the following:
>
> $ { printf '%s\n' 'UBCT1 local_datas' ';; a' 'abc.def. 3600 in txt testupa' ';; b'; } | sudo socat - UNIX-CONNECT:/run/unbound.ctl
> error parsing local-data at line 1 position 4 ';; a': Syntax error, could not parse the RR

Is there a reason you're not reporting this dirctly uptream? AFAICT the
(few) Debian patches we have don't touch any of this code and 1.18.0 is the
latest upstream release so there should be no reason to burden the Debian
maintainers here.

This also applies to your #1051818. I'd suggest submitting the bugs here

    https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/issues/new/choose

or the unbound-users ML if you prefer not to use GH

   https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users

--Daniel

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1171266

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 03:19:36PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > In trying to reduce another bug, I got the following:
> > $ { printf '%s\n' 'UBCT1 local_datas' ';; a' 'abc.def. 3600 in txt testupa' ';; b'; } | sudo socat - UNIX-CONNECT:/run/unbound.ctl
> > error parsing local-data at line 1 position 4 ';; a': Syntax error, could not parse the RR
> Is there a reason you're not reporting this dirctly uptream?
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#:~:text=Don't%20file%20bugs%20upstream, bestie

And, more succinctly:
> AFAICT the
> (few) Debian patches we have don't touch any of this code and 1.18.0 is the
> latest upstream release so there should be no reason to burden the Debian
> maintainers here.
The Debian maintainers' purpose is precisely to know if they broke
something or if they hadn't and to tell me to report something upstream
(or to do so themselves, or to fix it themselves, or to apply a patch,
 or do whatever is approprate for their favourite software they alone
 know the precise details of).
Indeed, some would say this is most of the value-add of a distribution.

Phrasing this as "reporting a bug in debian to the appropriate debian
maintainers burdens them greatly" is baffling.

If this mail were "We don't seem to patch this in Debian.
> This also applies to your #1051818. I'd suggest submitting the bugs here
>     https://github.com/NLnetLabs/unbound/issues/new/choose
> or the unbound-users ML if you prefer not to use GH
>    https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
> --Daniel
" then that'd be reasonable. But come on, don't berate users for doing the
right (and hard-fought-for) thing.

наб

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1171273

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:01:00PM +0200, наб wrote:
> [...] But come on, don't berate users for doing the right (and
> hard-fought-for) thing.

I didn't mean to berate you.

I'm trying to point out, respectfully, that there's not much of a point in
doing a round trip through Debian in cases like this. Perhaps I'm missing
something hence the "is there a reason" question.

I might also remind you of the Debian Code of Conduct: 2. Assume good faith

> Phrasing this as "reporting a bug in debian to the appropriate debian
> maintainers burdens them greatly" is baffling.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

--Daniel

PS: While I find your unfriendly response disappointing, you should still
feel free to CC me on your upstream report (@DanielG on GH) so I can update
the Debian bugs.

--Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web