On 09/05/2012 07:55 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > On 09/04/2012 11:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 08/22/2012 11:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 08/22/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >>>> On 08/22/2012 10:59 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >>>>> As I said in a previous message, dnsmasq is forwarding a number of >>>>> queries upstream that should not be done. There still remains an MX >>>>> query for a plain name with no domain specified that will be >>>>> forwarded >>>>> is dnsmasq has --domain=xxx --local=/xxx/ specified. This does not >>>>> happen with no domain name and --local=// ... not a libvirt problem. >>>>> >>>> ACK and pushed with the above tweak, and with adding you to AUTHORS >>>> (let >>>> us know if you prefer any other spelling or email address; the file is >>>> in UTF-8). >>> Oh, and now that I've already pushed, I have a high-level question: >>> what >>> is the minimum version of 'dnsmasq' that supports the command-line >>> syntax that this patch introduces? >>> >>> +--local=// --domain-needed --filterwin2k \ >>> >>> If older dnsmasq doesn't recognize --local=// or the new >>> --domain-needed >>> or --filterwin2k options, then we either need to make this code >>> conditional based on probing 'dnsmasq --help' at startup, or else >>> change >>> the spec file to require a larger minimum version of dnsmasq (we >>> already >>> require 2.41 for other reasons). >> Just as I feared, we introduced a regression: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854137 >> >> Apparently, --filterwin2k disables features needed by Windows guests. >> Gene, what is the benefit vs. cost of adding this flag? I'm trying to >> figure out whether we need to expose it as something user-configurable, >> or whether we should just revert back to the pre-patch version that did >> not supply that option. >> > I already had some second thoughts about --filterwin2k but you had > pushed it. "--filterwin2k" should be removed. Yes, as rare as dialup lines are these days, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone running a virt host will be connected to the rest of the network in a way which will require bringing up a dialup network connection in order to send a packet to a domain controller. So, I don't think we should clutter the XML with such a specific option that will in all likelyhood never be used. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list