Hi Willy, >-----Original Message----- >From: Nikhil Kapoor >Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:09 PM >To: 'Willy Tarreau' <w...@1wt.eu>; Jonathan Matthews <cont...@jpluscplusm.com> >Cc: haproxy@formilux.org >Subject: RE: BUG/MINOR: limiting the value of "inter" parameter for Health >check
>Hi Willy, >-----Original Message----- >From: Willy Tarreau [mailto:w...@1wt.eu] >Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:18 PM >To: Jonathan Matthews <cont...@jpluscplusm.com> >Cc: Nikhil Kapoor <nikhi...@india.nec.com>; haproxy@formilux.org >Subject: Re: BUG/MINOR: limiting the value of "inter" parameter for Health >check >Hi Jonathan, >On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:38:00PM +0000, Jonathan Matthews wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 at 09:50, Nikhil Kapoor <nikhi...@india.nec.com> >> wrote >> >> > As currently, no parsing error is displayed when larger value is >> > given to "inter" parameter in config file. >> > >> > After applying this patch the maximum value of "inter" is set to 24h (i.e. >> > 86400000 ms). >> > > >>> I regret to inform you, with no little embarrassment, that some years >>> ago I designed a system which relied upon this parameter being set >>> higher than 24 hours. > >>> I was not proud of this system, and it served absolutely minimal >>> quantities of traffic ... but it was a valid setup. > > >What's the rationale for having *any* maximum value here - saving > >folks from unintentional misconfigurations, or something else? >>I agree with you here. In fact what we should do is instead strengthen > >>the timeout parser to emit errors when the parsed number >overflows. >>The timer wraps around 49.7 days with a sliding window of half of it >>allowing >>24.85 usable days to always be possible. That would be preferable and it >>wouldn't set any arbitrary had limits. >After analyzing the code on the given problem, I found that the check is based >on INT_MAX value and will only be executed when >"stick-table" option is >included in haproxy.cfg file. >However for a user, if "stick-table" option is not used in haproxy.cfg file >then there is no other limit(24.85 days) in the haproxy code. >I believe the below check should not be based on "stick-table" option and >should run every time when haproxy is started. >Please let me know if there is any gap in understanding and we can perform the >code change as mentioned. >File-> cfgparse.c >--> if (val > INT_MAX ) { ha_alert("parsing [%s:%d] : Expire value [%u]ms exceeds maxmimum value of 24.85 days.\n", file, linenum, val); err_code |= ERR_ALERT | ERR_FATAL; goto out; Along with the above understanding I am starting with the patch creation. Please let me know if there is any gap. Regards Nikhil Kapoor
