net: allow custom Resolver method implementation(s)

[sajal]

I mentioned in #12476 that I would like to detect the time it took for DNS resolution phase of the Dial process in Dialer.Dial . The solution posted there was very hacky and adds unnecessarily to the API.

@bradfitz suggested

Perhaps net.Dialer could have an optional Resolver, akin to how http.Client has an optional Transport, or http.Server has an optional ErrorLog, etc.

This seems like an excellent idea. Here is how I propose we go about it by adding minimal complexity and preserving code compatibility.

I propose net package adds a new Resolver interface.

type Resolver interface {
    Resolve(host string, deadline time.Time) (addrs []IPAddr, err error)
}

The signature of Resolver.Resolve is same as lookupIPDeadline which Dial eventually uses. Dialer gets an optional field CustomResolver of type Resolver.

The Resolver object (or nil) gets passed around thru the resolution process.

Dialer.Dial -> resolveAddrList -> internetAddrList .

internetAddrList currently always uses lookupIPDeadline, it would need to be changed such that if the passed custom resolver is not nil then use it, otherwise use lookupIPDeadline.

Other functions calling resolveAddrList or internetAddrList would need to be modified to add an extra nil argument . This does not break code compatibility because they are unexported functions.

Benefits of allowing a custom Resolver

• Allowing me to collect timing information as mentioned in net: I would like Dialer.Dial to provide the time it took to do DNS lookups and TCP Connect #12476
• Allowing users to implement their own DNS logic. Failovers, etc.
• Mocking for tests.
• Client side caching, pre-fetching, etc.
• In time, other packages ( like the superb github.com/miekg/dns ) could provide their own Resolver implementations.
• Great for people like me who rely on Go to write network debugging tools.

[sajal]

Should I implement and submit the change for codereview? Or wait for some comments here?

[bradfitz]

No need to prototype it yet. The code will be relatively easy compared to getting the design right.

I suspect that signature isn't general enough. Maybe it's good enough for a dialer, but perhaps it needs a different name.

I bet we don't want to define an interface in the net package. If anything, it could just be an optional func type on the Dialer, similar to funcs on http://golang.org/pkg/net/http/#Transport

[sajal]

Perhaps call it Lookupfunc(or better name) and deadline-ing is handled inside net package. It might mirror signature of net.LookupIP which is used by default if Lookupfunc is nil.

Anything that does a lookup could ask for optional field for Lookupfunc to allow user to provide their own implementation.

[benburkert]

I would also like to see a Resolver interface but with multiple methods that match the net.Lookup* funcs.

type Resolver interface {
  LookupAddr(addr string) (names []string, err error)
  LookupCNAME(name string) (cname string, err error)
  LookupHost(host string) (addrs []string, err error)
  LookupIP(host string) (ips []IP, err error)
  LookupMX(name string) (mxs []*MX, err error)
  LookupNS(name string) (nss []*NS, err error)
  LookupPort(network, service string) (port int, err error)
  LookupSRV(service, proto, name string) (cname string, addrs []*SRV, err error)
  LookupTXT(name string) (txts []string, err error)
}

The timeout & deadline functionality could be configured when the resolver is created:

func NewResolver(options ResolverOption...) (Resolver, error)

type ResolverOption func(*resolver) error

func ResolverTimeout(duration time.Duration) ResolverOption
func ResolverDeadline(deadline time.Time) ResolverOption

[bradfitz]

@benburkert, that is not a Go-style (small) interface. Once you have 9 methods, surely somebody would want to add a tenth later, but they can't for compatibility reasons. 9 methods is also hard to implement. We'd probably have to add some sort of EmptyResolver type that people could embed which just returned errors for everything.

I'd start with looking at which interfaces are actually needed by the things this bug is about. Maybe you'd have 9 interfaces instead (maybe starting with 3?) and combine them as needed like io.ReadWriteCloser? I don't know. I haven't given this much thought yet.

[davecheney]

What about Lookup(recordtype, query string) ...

It's similar to our Dial(network, address string) function, and would permit wildcard, ANY, and lookups for types not yet added to the dns spec.

Just spitballing...

[theckman]

I just ran in to this issue myself, except a little bit abstracted away from net.Dialer. My use-case may be a little weird, but this would come in extremely handy for me if it was also exposed within the net/http package.

I'm writing a utility that's going to talk over TLS to backend systems (HTTP + JSON) and I'm using Consul to discover the individual backend nodes. The biggest issue is that I don't have all of my system's DNS requests being serviced by Consul, so pulling a configuration from /etc/resolv.conf won't really work. I plan on using their port 8600 DNS interface.

So I'll end up needing to first obtain a list of IP addresses from the Consul DNS endpoint and then use that IP address in the URL. Following that, I'll need to set the Host field on the request so that the TLS validation works. The only downside here is that I end up having to do a network operation at the creation time of the http.Request struct instead of when actually invoking the request.

If the http.Transport struct was modified to support a custom DNS resolver code path, it would make the code cleaner and avoid the upfront network call.

[mikioh]

At the moment, Dial runs the following processes serially for simplicity:

1. multiple host and service discovery racers
2. making a short list of target addresses
3. multiple connection setup racers, and picking a single winner

In near future, when we want more performance on some circumstances, we probably run:

1. multiple host/service discovery+connection setup racers
   • per address family, per service {name,port}, etc
2. picking a single winner

For both cases, the Resolver interface needs to take information for host and service filters. Moreover, it would probably need certificates for supporting upcoming DNS over TLS and DANE.

Looks like this proposal makes it possible to place complicated DNS-related packages at x/net repository. I'm happy if we have fancy name/service discovery functionality without replumbing of packages in standard library.

[anatol]

I am trying to run a network application at Android arm64 system and http.Get fails because of DNS resolution failed. It turned out Android uses custom dns resolver interface. https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/libc/dns/net/gethnamaddr.c#564 An application opens /dev/socket/dnsproxyd socket and uses it to resolve names. I tried GODEBUG=netdns=cgo and for some reason it does not work on Android.

It would be nice if I can implement a custom dns resolver and tell my application to use it. Here is similar issue from another project [1].

[1] syncthing/syncthing-android#412 (comment)

[sajal]

Valid use-case for custom resolver, but have you tried using the Android NDK to build your binary?

[jabley]

I'd similarly be interested in having timing information available, similar to time_* variables in curl. A monitoring tool that can periodically probe networks would be very handy.

Happy to open up a separate proposal if it's felt to be off-topic for this one?

[bradfitz]

@jabley, that already happened for Go 1.7. See #12580

[adg]

This needs a proper proposal document to move forward.

[adg]

An extension to the work done in #16672

[bradfitz]

In particular, this got submitted: https://go-review.googlesource.com/29440

[mrwiora]

hi all,

this topic seems to be implemented and still open so I'd like to try it ;)
As described on stackoverflow I would like to directly use the new resolver configuration options.

The only option I miss is to avoid the fallback to another DNS - I thought about a switch.

[bradfitz]

Copying my comment from https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/115855#message-d80f076d91f28a2e5aa2f1eb6fdd88a33aec9502 ....

I can't think of a name or pattern I like here. The closest is naming them all LookupFooFunc, but then there's too many of them.

I do want this behavior, but we kinda already have the hook we need for testing purposes: Resolver.Dial.

We just need an easy way to wire up high-level Lookup func literals into fake in-memory DNS-speaking func implementations to assign to the Resolver.Dial field.

Before we add a bunch of stuff, I'd like to see a package (we could even put it in golang.org/x/net or nettest) that does the in-memory fake-DNS stuff and answers the DNS queries using the test/etc-provided LookupFoo funcs. Such a package should be even easier lately given the recent work on golang.org/x/net/dns.

(The user would probably also have to set Resolver.PreferGo to true to force the Dial to be used instead of cgo?)

So let's put this on hold for now until we see what such a package might look & feel like.

/cc @iangudger

[iangudger]

Another way to achieve this with the current interface would be to use the PacketResolver from golang.org/cl/107306, wrap it in a net.Conn implantation, and return it from Resolver.Dial.

[bradfitz]

Oh, nice. PacketResolver makes such a glue package even easier.

[benburkert]

Check out https://godoc.org/github.com/benburkert/dns for some prior art of that glue package.

[adamramadhan]

how is this going? is there a current working example to force using 8.8.8.8 resolver and somesort of timeout?

[Dirbaio]

I'm also hitting this with a different use case: making a service that sends webhooks. I need a way to avoid posting webhooks to internal IPs.

• Parsing the URL is not an option, since an external domain can resolve to internal IPs.
• Resolving the host on my own and then doing the request if it's OK is vulnerable to races.
• Resolving and rewriting the URL to contain the IP breaks Host header, SNI, round-robin DNS, Happy Eyeballs...

Ideally there would be a way to "MITM" the Resolver call, to inject my own error if a returned IP is internal.

[anacrolix]

I've had to do this kind of manual resolution with both torrent trackers and DHT global bootstrap resolution in order to implement IP blocklists. In both cases I'd rather just provide a resolution hook and filter or disallow IPs from the blocked ranges in the results.

[sajal]

@Dirbaio I did something similar in the past, but without doing any resolver stuff. (This is very old code, not sure if still valid)

func dialContext(ctx context.Context, network, address string) (net.Conn, error) {
	con, err := (&net.Dialer{
		Timeout:   dialtimeout, //DNS + Connect
		KeepAlive: keepalive,
	}).DialContext(ctx, network, address)
	if err == nil {
		//If a connection could be established, ensure its not local
		a, _ := con.RemoteAddr().(*net.TCPAddr)

		if islocalip(a.IP) {
			fmt.Println(a.IP)
			con.Close()
			return nil, securityerr
		}
	}
	return con, err
}

Usage

	//Configure our transport, new one for each request
	transport := &http.Transport{
		DialContext:           dialContext,
                ......
	}
	client := http.Client{
		Transport: transport,
                .....
	}

It does allow dialing to internal IP, but not able to send any requests to that.

[cevatbarisyilmaz]

For anyone needs this functionality until a patch comes (if it comes at all), I recently wrote a partial net.Dialer replacement that accepts an interface Resolver. After using the custom resolver, it still uses net.Dialer internally and tries to mimic the original net.Dialer's behaviour when possible. It can also be used with http.Transport and http.Client.

Check it out here: https://github.com/cevatbarisyilmaz/ara

[ayanamist]

For anyone needs this functionality until a patch comes (if it comes at all), I recently wrote a partial net.Dialer replacement that accepts an interface Resolver. After using the custom resolver, it still uses net.Dialer internally and tries to mimic the original net.Dialer's behaviour when possible. It can also be used with http.Transport and http.Client.

Check it out here: https://github.com/cevatbarisyilmaz/ara

I appreciate your work, can you provide dialParallel for dual stack dialing?

[cevatbarisyilmaz]

Sure, I'll take a look.

[cevatbarisyilmaz]

I pushed the commit though I didn't really test it yet (at least it didn't disrupt the current tests). Feel free to open an issue in the repo for any further things.

[jmalloc]

Is there any chance that whatever approach is taken here (in the net package I mean) could/would allow for building a resolver that supports multicast DNS (even if it's only legacy queries)? It seems that native Go implementation does not support mDNS, and hence it is unavailable when building with CGO disabled.

[ncruces]

See github.com/ncruces/go-dns for more "prior art" on hooking into net.Resolver.Dial. Implemented caching, opportunistic encryption and DoH/DoS.

This bit implements the strategy mentioned in the above comment (a fake net.Conn that you can return from Dial). With this in place, implementing the DoH exchange is a relatively simple matter.

[codeskyblue]

Check out https://godoc.org/github.com/benburkert/dns for some prior art of that glue package.

I figured out the code bellow.

package main

import (
	"log"
	"net"
	"time"

	"github.com/benburkert/dns"
)

func init() {
	zone := &dns.Zone{
		Origin: "example.org.",
		TTL:    5 * time.Minute,
		RRs: dns.RRSet{
			"foo": {
				dns.TypeA: []dns.Record{
					&dns.A{A: net.ParseIP("1.2.3.4")},
				},
			},
		},
	}
	mux := new(dns.ResolveMux)
	mux.Handle(dns.TypeANY, zone.Origin, zone)

	net.DefaultResolver = &net.Resolver{
		PreferGo: true,
		Dial: (&dns.Client{
			Resolver: mux,
		}).Dial,
	}
}

func main() {
	log.Println(net.LookupHost("foo.example.org")) // it's working. output: [1.2.3.4] <nil>
	log.Println(net.LookupHost("www.example.org")) // error no such host. I don't known how to fallback to DNS query
}

[aojea]

Copying my comment from https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/115855#message-d80f076d91f28a2e5aa2f1eb6fdd88a33aec9502 ....

I can't think of a name or pattern I like here. The closest is naming them all LookupFooFunc, but then there's too many of them.
I do want this behavior, but we kinda already have the hook we need for testing purposes: Resolver.Dial.
We just need an easy way to wire up high-level Lookup func literals into fake in-memory DNS-speaking func implementations to assign to the Resolver.Dial field.
Before we add a bunch of stuff, I'd like to see a package (we could even put it in golang.org/x/net or nettest) that does the in-memory fake-DNS stuff and answers the DNS queries using the test/etc-provided LookupFoo funcs. Such a package should be even easier lately given the recent work on golang.org/x/net/dns.
(The user would probably also have to set Resolver.PreferGo to true to force the Dial to be used instead of cgo?)
So let's put this on hold for now until we see what such a package might look & feel like.

/cc @iangudger

@bradfitz check if this similar to what you had in mind https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/net/+/347850

[ns-jisorce]

Hi @aojea Hi @bradfitz , any update on this ? Thx

[TyeMcQueen]

I've prototyped a fairly simple change that significantly narrows the required customization to a single-function interface that doesn't abstract everything that Resolver does, just the part that is used by net.Dialer (and thus by net/http), namely the internetAddrList() private method.

In the net package, I add (in dial.go in my prototype):

type InternetAddrLister interface {
    InternetAddrList(ctx context.Context, net, addr string) ([]Addr, error)
}

And allow users to provide an alternate implementation for net.Dialer to use.

For maximum usefulness, it is best to also allow a *net.Resolver to be used as an InternetAddrLister so people can provide a replacement by just wrapping around the existing net.Resolver implementation (for cases where they want to do light customization rather than provide a whole custom resolution implementation).

I think this function is a very useful abstraction (and the Go authors appear to agree since this is used quite a few places) and we should just make it a public method of Resolver.

I can submit my changes but I wanted to align on the approach before doing so.