Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:03:19 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Named problem Message-ID: <20021203230319.GB76676@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> In-Reply-To: <20021203192559.GC23724@dasboot.birch.se> References: <20021203172500.GA23429@dasboot.birch.se> <20021203165723.GB74738@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophi> <20021203192559.GC23724@dasboot.birch.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:25:59PM +0000, User Thrawn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:57:23PM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > Hmmm... With the bind-9.2.1 port, you don't need to install everything
> > under the chroot directory, neither do you need to either staticly
> > link the programs or copy any shlibs under the the chroot.
>
> Aha okej, I didn't know that. Thanks for that I will change that.
I wrote some notes about configuring Bind9 chroot'ed that I sent to
the freebsd-users@uk.freebsd.org list --- a bit sketchy I'm afraid,
but it's at:
http://listserver.uk.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-users/2002-November/006883.html
if you're interested.
> > syslogd_flags="-ss -l /etc/namedb/master/var/run/log"
> > so you can see any log messages produced after named calls chroot(2)?
>
> Not until now, I added them and restarted syslogd manualy. But should log be a dir or a file?
>
> Its look like this for now when I do a ls -l on it:
>
> srw-rw-rw- 1 root bind 0 Dec 3 18:37 log
It's a unix domain socket, as it should be. That's what the 's' in
'srw-rw-rw-' means. Now when you restart named(8) you should see some
more meaningful error messages in /var/log/messages or
/var/log/all.log (if you've enabled it --- see
/etc/syslog.conf). Bind9 is a lot pickier about the config file and
zone file syntax than Bind8, so you've probably got some debugging to
do. Ultimately, once you've fixed all the show stoppers, you
should see the "Ready to answer queries." message that indicates
everything is working OK.
> > > host { any; } {
> > > topology {
> > > 127.0.0.0/8 192.168.0.0/24;
> > > };
> > > };
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm.. According to
> > file:///usr/local/share/doc/bind9/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#Configuration_File_Grammar
> > there isn't any mention of such a thing as a 'host' top level block in
> > the config file. There's a 'topology {};' element that is part of the
> > 'options {};' block. However, it defaults to: 'topology { localhost;
> > localnets; };' which is pretty much what you have already.
>
> So you are saying that I should remove it then?
Yes. See if commenting it out makes your nameserver behave better.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021203230319.GB76676>