Applied the patch to 1.6-dev5, using exactly same configuration as I sent over earlier on both of my haproxy instances. stick table entries are being synced from A->B but not B->A. I have tried using single process too. Any idea what could be wrong here?
- Pradeep Jindal On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Pradeep Jindal <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I was driving so couldn't reply with deetz. Processes not using any > peers section would die. > On Sep 21, 2015 6:54 PM, "Willy Tarreau" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:20:14PM +0200, Emeric Brun wrote: >> > On 09/21/2015 03:03 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:25:39PM +0530, Pradeep Jindal wrote: >> > >> I will give you more info in a while. I did some debugging, >> > >> "peers->sync_task = NULL;" seems to be the culprit here, First, >> > >> peers->sync_task is being set to NULL and then being deleted & freed >> which >> > >> I think would obviously fail. I moved "peers->sync_task = NULL;" to >> after >> > >> task_free call in the code below and it works as expected now. Let >> me know >> > >> if this makes sense. >> > >> >> > >> ==== peers.c ==== >> > >> static struct task *process_peer_sync(struct task * task) >> > >> { >> > >> struct peers *peers = (struct peers *)task->context; >> > >> struct peer *ps; >> > >> struct shared_table *st; >> > >> >> > >> task->expire = TICK_ETERNITY; >> > >> >> > >> if (!peers->peers_fe) { >> > >> /* this one was never started, kill it */ >> > >> signal_unregister_handler(peers->sighandler); >> > >> peers->sync_task = NULL; >> > >> task_delete(peers->sync_task); >> > >> task_free(peers->sync_task); >> > >> return NULL; >> > >> } >> > >> ==== peers.c ==== >> > > >> > > Absolutely! This is definitely a bug. CCing Emeric who may have an >> idea >> > > when this may happen. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Willy >> > > >> > >> > Yep, it's a bug! I think the issue should happen when a 'peers' section >> isn't >> > used by any 'frontend/backend' bound on current process. >> >> I confirm. 5 out of 6 processes die with Pradeep's config. Since I didn't >> know what to look for, I didn't notice. >> >> I'm applying your fix, Pradeep. Thanks! >> Willy >> >>
