Hi Christopher, On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 03:06:13PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: > >From 7ed3c2942d57ea2ddfc8973cce9cc1c94bca01da Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Christopher Faulet <cfau...@haproxy.com> > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:53:22 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] BUG: spoe: Fix parsing of SPOE actions in ACK frames > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 > > For "SET-VAR" actions, data was not correctly parsed. 'idx' variable was not > correctly updated when the 3rd argument was parsed.
Are you sure your patch is correct ? I think it's bogus : > diff --git a/src/flt_spoe.c b/src/flt_spoe.c > index 0b722b6..8227140 100644 > --- a/src/flt_spoe.c > +++ b/src/flt_spoe.c > @@ -2017,7 +2017,7 @@ process_spoe_actions(struct stream *s, struct > spoe_context *ctx, > goto skip; > memset(&smp, 0, sizeof(smp)); > smp_set_owner(&smp, s->be, s->sess, s, > dir|SMP_OPT_FINAL); > - if (decode_spoe_data(p+idx, p+size, &smp) == -1) > + if ((idx += decode_spoe_data(p+idx, p+size, > &smp)) == -1) > goto skip; The only case it will work is when idx = 0 before decoding, which doesn't really look like the only case you're interested in. I guess you wanted to do this instead : - if (decode_spoe_data(p+idx, p+size, &smp) == -1) + ret = decode_spoe_data(p+idx, p+size, &smp); + if (ret == -1) goto skip; + idx += ret; Am I wrong ? That's the reason why I hate assignments in "if" conditions, half of the time they are bogus, the other half they make the reader scratch his head wondering if it's bogus or intended :-) Willy