Re: dev 2.2 High CPU Constantly

2020-06-12 Thread Igor Pav
Hi, are those log lines both in syslog? I didn't see it there. I'm using this simple setup for a forward HTTP proxy, sooner and later, CPU goes crazy. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM William Dauchy wrote: > > Hello Igor, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:25 PM Igor Pav wrote: > > We got a very

Re: missing backports in haproxy-1.8

2020-06-12 Thread William Lallemand
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Jerome Magnin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:27:26PM +0200, William Lallemand wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:41:51PM +0200, Jerome Magnin wrote: > > > 72d9f3351 BUILD: chunk: properly declare pool_head_trash as extern > > > 2231b6388 BUILD:

Re: missing backports in haproxy-1.8

2020-06-12 Thread Jerome Magnin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:10:08AM +0200, William Lallemand wrote: > I pushed them in the 1.8 git. I couldn't reproduce the issue though, > which compiler do you use? > I ran into the issue with gcc 10.1.0. Thanks for the backports! Jérôme

Re: Patch backport request: __USE_GNU breaks uclibc in the 2.1 branch

2020-06-12 Thread William Lallemand
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:54:26PM +0200, Chris wrote: > http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=62af9c83f9ed2b25e0061798e29e3cccfce5fbdc). > > So in conclusion, my request is to backport Willy's change to the 2.1 > tree, please. > Hello Chris, I just backported it and pushed it in

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello Bjoern, On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 15:09, bjun...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. > > I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need this for some legacy clients), so > far without success. > > I've read different things, on the one hand Ubuntu

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread Илья Шипицин
if haproxy was built against openssl with disabled TLS1.0, so haproxy does not support TLS1.0 you need to rebuild haproxy after enabling пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 18:12, bjun...@gmail.com : > Hi, > > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. > > I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread bjun...@gmail.com
Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 15:24 Uhr schrieb Lukas Tribus : > Hello Bjoern, > > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 15:09, bjun...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. > > > > I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need this for some legacy clients), > so

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread Jerome Magnin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:09:18PM +0200, bjun...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. > > I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need this for some legacy clients), so > far without success. > > I've read different things, on the one hand Ubuntu has

[PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: checks: Fix off-by-one in allocation of SMTP greeting cmd

2020-06-12 Thread Tim Duesterhus
The allocation did not account for either the trailing null byte or the space, leading to a buffer overwrite. This bug was detected by an assertion failure in the allocator. But can also be easily detected using valgrind: ==25827== Invalid write of size 1 ==25827==at 0x6529759:

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Илья Шипицин
пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 20:01, Willy Tarreau : > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 07:52:48PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > it should be detectable using > > > > #if defined(__has_feature)# if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)// > > code that builds only under AddressSanitizer# endif#endif > > OK that

Patch backport request: __USE_GNU breaks uclibc in the 2.1 branch

2020-06-12 Thread Chris
Hello everybody, I am one of the maintainers of the haproxy package for the OpenWRT project. I am reaching out to you because - as of HAProxy version 2.1.5 - we experience build-issues on some of our build-targets. We mostly use MUSL and uclibc as our c-libraries because they are more suitable

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread bjun...@gmail.com
Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 16:02 Uhr schrieb Jerome Magnin : > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:09:18PM +0200, bjun...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. > > > > I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need this for some legacy clients), > so > > far

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 07:52:48PM +0500, ??? wrote: > it should be detectable using > > #if defined(__has_feature)# if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)// > code that builds only under AddressSanitizer# endif#endif OK that could be useful indeed, thanks! > I agree to remove asan from

Re: Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread bjun...@gmail.com
Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 15:38 Uhr schrieb bjun...@gmail.com < bjun...@gmail.com>: > Am Fr., 12. Juni 2020 um 15:24 Uhr schrieb Lukas Tribus : > >> Hello Bjoern, >> >> >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 15:09, bjun...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Илья Шипицин
пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 19:31, Willy Tarreau : > Hi Ilya, > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > Ilya, > > > > Am 16.03.20 um 07:52 schrieb ???: > > > we use clang because of its address sanitizer. I found gcc asan more > noisy > > > and less usable. > >

Re: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: checks: Fix off-by-one in allocation of SMTP greeting cmd

2020-06-12 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:58:48PM +0200, Tim Duesterhus wrote: > The allocation did not account for either the trailing null byte or the > space, leading to a buffer overwrite. (...) Indeed, applied now. Thank you Tim! Willy

Ubuntu 20.04 + TLSv1

2020-06-12 Thread bjun...@gmail.com
Hi, currently i'm testing Ubuntu 20.04 and HAProxy 2.0.14. I'm trying to get TLSv1 working (we need this for some legacy clients), so far without success. I've read different things, on the one hand Ubuntu has removed TLSv1/TLSv1.1 support completely, otherwise that it can be enabled:

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Ilya, On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:49:26AM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Ilya, > > Am 16.03.20 um 07:52 schrieb ???: > > we use clang because of its address sanitizer. I found gcc asan more noisy > > and less usable. Going back to this, I spent the whole day trying to figure what

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:57:44PM +0500, ??? wrote: > ??, 12 ???. 2020 ?. ? 20:46, Willy Tarreau : > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:11:52PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > > > Has it ever reported a *real* issue ? I mean, we've been working around > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:11:52PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > Has it ever reported a *real* issue ? I mean, we've been working around > > > > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/96 > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/104 > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/106 >

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Илья Шипицин
пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 21:09, Willy Tarreau : > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:57:44PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > ??, 12 ???. 2020 ?. ? 20:46, Willy Tarreau : > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:11:52PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > > > > Has it ever reported a *real* issue ? I mean, we've been

Re: [PATCH] switch to clang-9 in Linux/travis-ci builds

2020-06-12 Thread Илья Шипицин
пт, 12 июн. 2020 г. в 20:46, Willy Tarreau : > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 08:11:52PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > > Has it ever reported a *real* issue ? I mean, we've been working around > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/96 > >

[ANNOUNCE] haproxy-2.0.15

2020-06-12 Thread William Lallemand
Hi, HAProxy 2.0.15 was released on 2020/06/12. It added 77 new commits after version 2.0.14. A major issue was fixed when using l7 retries which could provokes a crash. The fix had to be done in a different way than in 2.1+ since the architecture changed a lot. If you want more details about it,