On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:24:02PM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > Le mercredi 15 décembre 2010 10:09:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:01:32AM +0100, Cyril Bonté wrote: > > (...) > > > The idea is to check each proxy in the scope of the stats and compare > > > their bind-process mask with the current stats proxy. > > > > I would do something simpler : only report a warning if one proxy is > > running with stats admin and with a bind-process mask which has 2 bits set > > (is not a power of 2). This is the correct condition to decide of an > > anomaly because an action will be sent to a random process. > > Then it's already done like that in the patch I provided (or I missed > something). > > > If the > > administrator correctly binds his proxies to a specific process, he likely > > knows what he's doing and we should not report an annoying warning here. > > OK, but I found it unsifficient. Weird configurations without any warning can > also be annoying and cause headaches :-) > The patch is already done, I'll make some tests tomorrow and send it to you > to > decide if it has sense ;-)
OK if you want. What I absolutely want to avoid is to emit warnings on possibly valid configs. However, for a long time I wanted to add a second level of warnings which emits messages about suspicious settings that are not necessarily invalid (eg: two servers with the same cookie value). And at least for that it can make sense to have controls such as the one you're suggesting. Thanks, Willy
