On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Artur, > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 02:36:01PM +0100, Artur wrote: > > Hello Willy, > > > > Le 19/12/2025 à 05:31, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > > First, congrats for your in-depth analysis. But as you can see above, > > > this version is long outdated, it has been missing 14 months of fixes > > > in its branch (roughly 548 patches) and that branch was dropped 9 months > > > ago. A quick check shows that 64 patches were applied to the DNS code > > > alone since then, 22 of which were bug fixes. I really don't see the > > > point in trying to cherry-pick random patches to this dead version, it > > > could happen to work around the problem by pure luck or break something > > > else, and in any case nobody will be able to help you set a diagnostic > > > on the resulting observations. Please try to reproduce the issue with a > > > maintained version so that it is possible to analyse what's happening > > > and a fix can be designed if the problem persists. > > > > I can read in Zach's email : I tried with both the version deployed during > > the issue and latest and was able to reproduce with both. > > Ah thanks, I didn't notice that part (it was a long wall of text). But > there it seems related to iptables so I'm not sure whether it speaks > about haproxy or the method used to inject faults using iptables. > > > It seems he tried recent Haproxy releases and was able to reproduce the > > problem. > > Maybe. Let's wait for Zach to clarify this point.
So indeed Zach just confirmed to me that 3.4-dev1 is also affected. Now we'll have to figure what's happening there. Willy
