On Fri, 05 Dec 2025 22:04:26 +0100 Sven Geuer <[email protected]> wrote: > Source: systemd > Version: 259~rc2-1 > Severity: important > X-Debbugs-Cc: Simon Kelley <[email protected]> > Control: affects -1 + src:dnsmasq > > Dear Maintainer, > > in testing, autopkgtest 'test upstream', apparently executed only on > amd64 architecture, fails with dnsmasq 2.92~rc1-1 from unstable [1]. It > specifically fails in TEST-85-NETWORK-NetworkdDHCPClientTests, > test_dhcp_client_reject_captive_portal [2]. Tests with dnsmasq 2.91-1 > succeeded [3]. > > As to me, the logs don't reveal enough details about how dnsmasq might > trigger this failure. I therefore ask for help on this issue. > > PS.: No other autopkgtest involving dnsmasq shows abnormalities [4].
You can find more information by downloading the 'artifacts' tar.gz and extracting the journal file from it. This is the test that fails: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/a895fb38bb615b7ddd29e14d876485701b445eaf/test/test-network/systemd-networkd-tests.py#L8604 It is starting dnsmasq as such: start_dnsmasq('--dhcp-option=114,' + masq(b'http://\x00invalid/url'), '--dhcp-option=option6:103,' + masq(b'http://\x00/invalid/url')) (full cmdline: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/a895fb38bb615b7ddd29e14d876485701b445eaf/test/test-network/systemd-networkd-tests.py#L857 ) So there should be no 'captive portal' visible given the invalid addresses. But there is: Captive Portal: 68:74:74:70:3a:2f:2f:00:69:6e:76:61:6c:69:64:2f:75:72:6c Did something change in dnsmasq in the new version related to any of this?
