Hi,
Update for people on the list that might be interested in the issue,
because part of discussion was private.
I wanted to check Willy suggestion and modified h2s struct (added dummy
fields):
struct h2s {
[...]
uint16_t status; /* HTTP response status */
unsigned long long body_len; /* remaining body length according to
content-length if H2_SF_DATA_CLEN */
struct buffer rxbuf; /* receive buffer, always valid (buf_empty or
real buffer) */
int dummy0;
struct wait_event wait_event; /* Wait list, when we're attempting
to send a RST but we can't send */
int dummy1;
struct wait_event *recv_wait; /* recv wait_event the conn_stream
associated is waiting on (via h2_subscribe) */
int dummy2;
struct wait_event *send_wait; /* send wait_event the conn_stream
associated is waiting on (via h2_subscribe) */
int dummy3;
struct list list; /* To be used when adding in h2c->send_list or
h2c->fctl_lsit */
struct list sending_list; /* To be used when adding in
h2c->sending_list */
};
With such modified h2s struct, the crash did not occur.
I've checked HAProxy 2.1, it crashes like 2.0.
I've also checked 2.2, bisection showed that this commit:
http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy-2.2.git;a=commitdiff;h=5723f295d85febf5505f8aef6afabb6b23d6fdec;hp=f11be0ea1e8e571234cb41a2fcdde2cf2161df37
fixed the crashes we experienced. I'm not sure how/if it fixed the memory
corruption, it is possible that memory is still corrupted but not causing
the crash.
pt., 25 wrz 2020 o 16:25 Kirill A. Korinsky <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> Very interesting.
>
> Anyway, I can see that this pice of code was refactored some time ago:
> https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/commit/f96508aae6b49277dcf142caa35042678cf8e2ca
>
> Maybe it is worth to try 2.2 or 2.3 branch?
>
> Yes, it is a blind shot and just a guess.
>
> --
> wbr, Kirill
>
> On 25. Sep 2020, at 16:01, Maciej Zdeb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes at the same place with same value:
>
> (gdb) bt full
> #0 0x0000559ce98b964b in h2s_notify_recv (h2s=0x559cef94e7e0) at
> src/mux_h2.c:783
> sw = 0xffffffff
>
>
>
> pt., 25 wrz 2020 o 15:42 Kirill A. Korinsky <[email protected]> napisał(a):
>
>> > On 25. Sep 2020, at 15:26, Maciej Zdeb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I was mailing outside the list with Willy and Christopher but it's
>> worth sharing that the problem occurs even with nbthread = 1. I've managed
>> to confirm it today.
>>
>>
>> I'm curious is it crashed at the same place with the same value?
>>
>> --
>> wbr, Kirill
>>
>>
>>
>
