Hacker News Reader

Comment by NelsonMinar | Hacker News Reader

It's remarkable that the ordinary DNS lookup function in glibc doesn't work if the records aren't in the right order. It's amazing to me we went 20+ years without that causing more problems. My guess is most people publishing DNS records just sort of knew that the order mattered in practice, maybe figuring it out in early testing.

View on HN

I think it's more of a server side ordering, in which there were not that many DNS servers out there, and the ones that didn't keep it in order quickly changed the behavior because of interop.

CNAMES are a huge pain in the ass (as noted by DJB https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/notes.html)

It's more likely because the internet runs on a very small number of authorative server implementations which all implement this ordering quirk.

This is a recursive resolver quirk

... that was perpetuated by BIND.

(Yes, there are other recursive resolver implementations, but they look at BIND as the reference implementation and absent any contravention to the RFC or intentional design-level decisions, they would follow BIND's mechanism.)

It's also the most natural way to structure the answer:

Hey, where can I find A.

Answer: A is actually B

Answer: Also B can be found at 42

It’s not remarkable, because it’s the way all DNS servers work. Order is important in DNS results. It’s why results with multiple A records are returned in shuffled orders: because that impacts how the client interprets the results. Anyone who works with DNS regularly beyond just reading the RFCs ought to recognize this intuitively.

People probably ran into this all the time, but no single party large enough to have it gain attention produced the failure state.

If a small business or cloud app can't resolve a domain because the domain is doing something different, it's much easier to blame DNS, use another DNS server, and move on. Or maybe just go "some Linuxes can't reach my website, oh well, sucks for the 1-3%".

Cloudflare is large enough that they caused issues for millions of devices all at once, so they had to investigate.

What's unclear to me is if they bothered to send patches to broken open-source DNS resolvers to fix this issue in the future.

No, because they're not really broken. I think this is fairly clear:

Based on what we have learned during this incident, we have reverted the CNAME re-ordering and do not intend to change the order in the future.

To prevent any future incidents or confusion, we have written a proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft to be discussed at the IETF.

That is, explicitly documenting the "broken" behaviour as permitted.

The last time this came up, people said that it was important to filter out unrelated address records in the answer section (with names to which the CNAME chain starting at the question name does not lead). Without the ordering constraint (or a rather low limit on the number of CNAMEs in a response), this needs a robust data structure for looking up DNS names. Most in-process stub resolvers (including the glibc one) do not implement a DNS cache, so they presently do not have a need to implement such a data structure. This is why eliminating the ordering constraint while preserving record filtering is not a simple code change.

Doesn't it need to go through the CNAME chain no matter what? If it's doing that, isn't filtering at most tracking all the records that matched? That requires a trivial data structure.

Parsing the answer section in a single pass requires more finesse, but does it need fancier data structures than a string to string map? And failing that you can loop upon CNAME. I wouldn't call a depth limit like 20 "a rather low limit on the number of CNAMEs in a response", and max 20 passes through a max 64KB answer section is plenty fast.

I don't know if the 20 limit is large enough in practice. People do weird things (after migrating from non-DNS naming services, for example). Then there is label compression, so you can have theoretically have several thousand RRs in a single 64 KiB response. These numbers are large enough that a simple multi-pass approach is probably not a good idea.

And practically speaking, none of this CNAME-chain chasing adds any functionality because recursive servers are expected to produce ready-to-use answers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com