Re: pcre vs pcre2, which one to use?

[Willy Tarreau]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 07:07:13PM -0800, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote:
> Hi Willy,
> 
> Thanks for the quick clarification. I've sent a patch.
> 
> I also changed the "Quick build & install" section in the INSTALL doc to
> use USE_PCRE2, so folks don't accidently use the older version. I hope that
> was an intended change.

That's perfect, thank you very much, now applied!

Willy

Get This Domain- LeasingVans.com

[Ivy Serrano]

 Greetings, my name is Ivy from TDS. We have a domain that is currently on
sale that you might be interested in - *LeasingVans.com*

Whenever someone types Leasing Vans, Leasing Vans Online, Leasing Vans
Services Near Me, The Best Leasing Vans, or any other phrase with these
keywords into their browser, your site could be the first they see!

The Internet is the most efficient way to acquire new customers.

Avg Google Search Results for this domain is: *23,500,000*
You can easily redirect all the traffic this domain gets to your current
site!

*GoDaddy.com* appraises this domain at $1,435

Priced at only $998 for a limited time! If interested please go to
*LeasingVans.com* and select Buy Now, *or purchase directly at GoDaddy*.
Act Fast! First person to select Buy Now gets it!

Thank you very much for your time.
Top Domain Sellers
Ivy Serrano
[image: beacon]

Re: pcre vs pcre2, which one to use?

[Abhijeet Rastogi]

Hi Willy,

Thanks for the quick clarification. I've sent a patch.

I also changed the "Quick build & install" section in the INSTALL doc to
use USE_PCRE2, so folks don't accidently use the older version. I hope that
was an intended change.


On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:08 PM Willy Tarreau  wrote:

> Hi Abhijeet,
>
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:19:27PM -0800, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote:
> > Hi HAproxy community,
> >
> > I see that Makefile
> >  suggests
> that
> > pcre1 is a recommended version to use, is that still true or a comment
> that
> > got out of date?
>
> I think the comment got out of date to be honest. I don't know what all
> distros use, but I suspect pcre2 has become the de-facto standard one by
> now.
>
> > I was able dig multiple threads from the past:
> >
> > * Thead1 <
> https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg24201.html>:
> > It doesn't look like it got an answer for the performance related
> question.
> > Is that something we know today?
> > * Thread2 <
> https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg41326.html>:
> > Looks like we decided to keep pcre1 for as long as it continues to work.
> > However, have we changed our recommendation to use pcre2 now?
>
> OK I didn't remember this, then it clearly makes sense to update the
> comment to say that pcre2 is the recommended one by now, and I guess
> it should be the one distros use by default, hence the most tested.
>
> If you're interested, do not hesitate to send a patch to move the
> "recommended" word in the makefile to pcre2, and also to add a sentence
> in the "INSTALL" file in the pcre section to indicate that pcre2 is
> now the recommended option when available. Please just have a look
> at the CONTRIBUTING file to see how to format your commit message
> to save a few round trips, and don't be afraid nor shy ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>


-- 
Cheers,
Abhijeet (https://abhi.host)


0001-DOC-install-recommend-pcre2.patch
Description: Binary data

Re: pcre vs pcre2, which one to use?

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Abhijeet,

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:19:27PM -0800, Abhijeet Rastogi wrote:
> Hi HAproxy community,
> 
> I see that Makefile
>  suggests that
> pcre1 is a recommended version to use, is that still true or a comment that
> got out of date?

I think the comment got out of date to be honest. I don't know what all
distros use, but I suspect pcre2 has become the de-facto standard one by
now.

> I was able dig multiple threads from the past:
> 
> * Thead1 :
> It doesn't look like it got an answer for the performance related question.
> Is that something we know today?
> * Thread2 :
> Looks like we decided to keep pcre1 for as long as it continues to work.
> However, have we changed our recommendation to use pcre2 now?

OK I didn't remember this, then it clearly makes sense to update the
comment to say that pcre2 is the recommended one by now, and I guess
it should be the one distros use by default, hence the most tested.

If you're interested, do not hesitate to send a patch to move the
"recommended" word in the makefile to pcre2, and also to add a sentence
in the "INSTALL" file in the pcre section to indicate that pcre2 is
now the recommended option when available. Please just have a look
at the CONTRIBUTING file to see how to format your commit message
to save a few round trips, and don't be afraid nor shy ;-)

Cheers,
Willy

pcre vs pcre2, which one to use?

[Abhijeet Rastogi]

Hi HAproxy community,

I see that Makefile
 suggests that
pcre1 is a recommended version to use, is that still true or a comment that
got out of date?

I was able dig multiple threads from the past:

* Thead1 :
It doesn't look like it got an answer for the performance related question.
Is that something we know today?
* Thread2 :
Looks like we decided to keep pcre1 for as long as it continues to work.
However, have we changed our recommendation to use pcre2 now?

Cheers,
Abhijeet (https://abhi.host)

Re: [PATCH] DOC: install: clarify WolfSSL chroot requirements

[William Lallemand]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 05:33:08PM +, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] DOC: install: clarify WolfSSL chroot requirements
> ---
>  INSTALL | 12 
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL
> index 18eb67f311..8ebf8d298c 100644
> --- a/INSTALL
> +++ b/INSTALL
> @@ -293,6 +293,18 @@ Please also note that wolfSSL supports many 
> platform-specific features that may
>  affect performance, and that for production uses it might be a good idea to
>  check them using "./configure --help". Please refer to the lib's 
> documentation.
>  
> +When running wolfSSL in chroot, either mount /dev/[u]random devices into the
> +chroot:
> +
> +  $ mkdir -p /path/to/chrootdir/dev/
> +  $ mknod -m 444 /path/to/chrootdir/dev/random c 1 8
> +  $ mknod -m 444 /path/to/chrootdir/dev/urandom c 1 9
> +
> +Or, if your OS supports it, enable the getrandom() syscall by appending the
> +following argument to the wolfSSL configure command:
> +
> +  EXTRA_CFLAGS=-DWOLFSSL_GETRANDOM=1
> +
>  Building HAProxy with wolfSSL requires to specify the API variant on the 
> "make"
>  command line, for example:
>  
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

Merged, thanks!

I also made some tests with RAND_bytes() after chroot() which seems to
work so it's kind of difficult to understand what's going on.

HAProxy doesn't seem to try opening /dev/urandom once it chroot'ed, and
the clients are getting SIGPIPEs. So, I believe some initialization are
failing in HAProxy and we are not checking it correctly. It might be
interesting to dig that a little bit.


-- 
William Lallemand

Re: [PATCH 0/2] CI cleanup and improvement

[William Lallemand]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 08:33:14PM +0100, Ilya Shipitsin wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 0/2] CI cleanup and improvement
> remove redundant function, improve openssl download helper
> 
> Ilya Shipitsin (2):
>   CI: cleanup: abandon asan matrix.py helper
>   BUILD: SSL: add yet another OpenSSL download fallback
> 
>  .github/matrix.py| 15 +--
>  scripts/build-ssl.sh |  4 +++-
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> 

Thanks, merged!

-- 
William Lallemand