well, I do not have an idea why
extchk_setenv(check, EXTCHK_HAPROXY_SERVER_ADDR, check->argv[3]); is used instead of EXTCHK_SETENV(check, EXTCHK_HAPROXY_SERVER_ADDR, check->argv[3], err); it means, some environment variables are set in "best effort" mode, i.e. error is ignored. is it bad ? I'm not sure. code comes from https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/commit/61cc85223098a962616ececa2d6bdd7809c37fe3 Christopher, do you know why we ignore exit status here ? вт, 26 мая 2020 г. в 19:59, Илья Шипицин <[email protected]>: > > > вт, 26 мая 2020 г. в 12:02, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Ilya, >> >> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 03:47:58PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: >> > From: Ilya Shipitsin <[email protected]> >> > Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 15:35:36 +0500 >> > Subject: [PATCH] CLEANUP: src/checks.c: ignore return value using >> DISGUISE(..) >> > >> > we do not want to check status of extchk_setenv, but static analyzsers >> > like Coverity are not happy about it. Let calm coverity down. >> >> Are you really sure we don't want to check them ? I'm seeing that >> prepare_external_check() uses EXTCHK_SETENV() to purposely add checks >> there, so it's unclear to me why we want to silently fail here. Maybe >> the calls should instead be changed to have a check and a jump to an >> error label doing the exit(). >> >> I don't know if anyone has an opinion on this, I'm not using external >> checks :-/ >> > > well, I meant to keep current behaviour, but also silence coverity warning. > > ok, we can investigate and discuss would it be better to change current > behaviour or to keep it. > > >> >> Willy >> >
