Hi again,

Le mer. 6 mai 2020 à 17:47, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> a écrit :

> Hi Olivier,
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:29:59PM +0200, Olivier D wrote:
> > > Try applying this commit:
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/commit/02c88036a61e09d0676a2b6b4086af677b023b94
> >
> >
> > So this patch is not working for me, with or without patching Apache2
> with
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63893
> >
> > But "good news" : reverting 7f26391bc51 did the trick.
> This is sad. So this means that we've trained external components to
> get used to our bugs and consider them to be the default behavior
> despite what the doc says.
> > To make sure we are talking about the same things, I've attached both
> > commits as patch files.
> > - applying 7f26391bc.patch did not fix the issue
> > - reverting 02c88036a.patch fixed the issue
> Then this is confusing because 7f2639 was already applied to your tree
> and is supposed to be the one causing you the issue, and 02c88 was not
> yet so you couldn't revert it. That's why I'd like to have a precise
> description of the starting state and what operations you did which
> worked and those which didn't.

My bad, I've inverted  7f26391bc and  02c88036a ... I should have used
named patches instead of dealing with commit number.
So to be clear :
I'm using 2.0.14 source code. In this version, patch 7f26391bc is already
applied and 02c88036a is not.
So applying 02c88036a did nothing (well, it triggers two different
non-working behaviour with Apache 2.4 patched, and a single behaviour
without the patch on remoteip).
And with clean source again, reverting 7f26391bc did the trick (on both
Apache 2.4 versions).

> > How safe is it to use 02c88036a reverted in production ?
> Either choice is safe for a given component. It's just that we send
> wrong information on health checks, forcing other implementations to
> implement bugs (see bug #511), that at least Dovecot doesn't support
> a "relaxed" approach combining LOCAL with an address, and that from
> what you're saying, Apache2 doesn't support LOCAL without an address.
> At this point I guess we'll have to revert all this from older branches
> and provide a config option for 2.2+ to re-enable the old behavior for
> compatibility with servers that got it wrong the first time.

Yes I understand. That's the price of fame :) HAProxy is now so widely used
that softwares are implemented based on what HAProxy does instead of what
the specs says.


Reply via email to