Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rec: Don't always validate when DNSSEC is set to process #5557

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 10, 2017

Conversation

rgacogne
Copy link
Member

Short description

Since the DNSSEC refactoring, the distinction between DNSSEC processing and validation was buggy, leading to DNSSEC validation being performed even when the dnssec parameter was set to process or process-no-validate.
Also fix DNSSEC validation statistics not being updated (they were updated in a function that is not being used anymore).

Checklist

I have:

  • read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
  • compiled and tested this code
  • included documentation (including possible behaviour changes)
  • documented the code
  • added or modified regression test(s)
  • added or modified unit test(s)

Also fix DNSSEC validation statistics.
@rgacogne rgacogne added this to the rec-4.1.0 milestone Jul 28, 2017
Copy link
Contributor

@pieterlexis pieterlexis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me! Nice job removing the unused functions and internalizing the dnssec validation vars.

@rgacogne rgacogne merged commit 6e5b4d4 into PowerDNS:master Aug 10, 2017
@rgacogne rgacogne deleted the rec-dnssec-process-states branch August 10, 2017 09:10
rgacogne added a commit to rgacogne/pdns that referenced this pull request Aug 10, 2017
rgacogne added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 10, 2017
rec: Fix the tests added in #5569 and #5570, DNSSEC modes changed in #5557
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants