Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@DL6ER
Copy link
Member

@DL6ER DL6ER commented May 21, 2025

What does this implement/fix?

Store intermediate CNAME domain pointers in DNS cache for later retrieval from cache without another CNAME inspection


Related issue or feature (if applicable): https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/domain-blocked-by-gravity-but-not-in-a-list/79968/11

Pull request in docs with documentation (if applicable): N/A


By submitting this pull request, I confirm the following:

  1. I have read and understood the contributors guide, as well as this entire template. I understand which branch to base my commits and Pull Requests against.
  2. I have commented my proposed changes within the code.
  3. I am willing to help maintain this change if there are issues with it later.
  4. It is compatible with the EUPL 1.2 license
  5. I have squashed any insignificant commits. (git rebase)

Checklist:

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • I based my code and PRs against the repositories developmental branch.
  • I signed off all commits. Pi-hole enforces the DCO for all contributions
  • I signed all my commits. Pi-hole requires signatures to verify authorship
  • I have read the above and my PR is ready for review.

…eval from cache without another CNAME inspection

Signed-off-by: DL6ER <[email protected]>
@pralor-bot
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on Pi-hole Userspace. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/domain-blocked-by-gravity-but-not-in-a-list/79968/13

@DL6ER
Copy link
Member Author

DL6ER commented May 23, 2025

Confirmed working by OP on discourse.

Copy link
Member

@yubiuser yubiuser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Development
2025-05-23_09-37

This branch
2025-05-23_09-37_1

Is it expected that the reply type of the second query is IP and not CNAME?

@DL6ER
Copy link
Member Author

DL6ER commented May 23, 2025

Is it expected that the reply type of the second query is IP and not CNAME?

Kind of, it is not exactly defined that reply means here. In the former case, it points to the upstream reply having been a CNAME (but we are still sending 0.0.0.0 or whatever else to the client). In the later, there is no upstream response but we reply from cache with 0.0.0.0.

@rdwebdesign rdwebdesign added the PR: Approved Open Pull Request, Approved by required number of reviewers label Jun 2, 2025
@dschaper dschaper mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2025
5 tasks
@DL6ER DL6ER merged commit 5cb6f9c into development Jun 8, 2025
17 of 18 checks passed
@DL6ER DL6ER deleted the fix/cache-cname-status branch June 8, 2025 18:43
@DL6ER DL6ER mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2025
@pralor-bot
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on Pi-hole Userspace. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/pi-hole-ftl-v6-2-3-released/80593/1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Bugfix Discourse Feature Request PR: Approved Open Pull Request, Approved by required number of reviewers

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants