On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 03:32:35PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: server: avoid changing healthcheck ctx with
> set server ssl
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 03:24:44PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:07:21PM +0100, W
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 03:24:44PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:07:21PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 07:46:24PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote:
> > > Hello Christopher,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:45 PM William Dauchy wrote:
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:07:21PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 07:46:24PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote:
> > Hello Christopher,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:45 PM William Dauchy wrote:
> > > my approach was to say:
> > > - remove the implicit behavior
> > > - then
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 07:46:24PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:45 PM William Dauchy wrote:
> > my approach was to say:
> > - remove the implicit behavior
> > - then work on the missing commands for the health checks
>
> Do you think we can con
Hello Christopher,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:45 PM William Dauchy wrote:
> my approach was to say:
> - remove the implicit behavior
> - then work on the missing commands for the health checks
Do you think we can conclude on it?
--
William
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:02 AM Christopher Faulet wrote:
> I don't know what is the expected behavior on the stable releases for users.
> Honestly, I've misread you patch and kept in mind you alternative solution...
> But as said, if there is no implicit change (and I'm fine with this
> solutio
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:02:30AM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote:
> I don't know what is the expected behavior on the stable releases for users.
> The actual state is buggy because health-check are only updated when ssl is
> disabled. When SSL is enabled on a server, there is no implicit change o
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 06:55:10PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote:
> Le 1/10/22 à 23:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > At this point I'm starting to think that we should probably avoid as
> > much as possible to use implicit settings for whatever is dynamic.
> > Originally a lot of settings were imp
Le 1/11/22 à 22:47, William Dauchy a écrit :
Agree. But, if possible, a warning may be added in the documentation to warn
about implicit changes.
From the discussion, I would be tempted to say the opposite, as I feel
like keeping implicit things for this command is worse.
I don't know what i
Hello Christopher,
Thanks for your research,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 6:55 PM Christopher Faulet wrote:
> Le 1/10/22 à 23:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> > At this point I'm starting to think that we should probably avoid as
> > much as possible to use implicit settings for whatever is dynamic.
> >
Le 1/10/22 à 23:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
At this point I'm starting to think that we should probably avoid as
much as possible to use implicit settings for whatever is dynamic.
Originally a lot of settings were implicit because we don't want to
have huge config lines to enforce lots of obvious
Le 1/10/22 à 23:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
w options were still configurable on the CLI by then.
"check-ssl" has been available for a long time, so that's not the
reason behind it, but I guess you were referring to something else. I
suspect I did a dumb copy/paste from the new_server function
Hi William!
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:49:38PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 7:51 AM Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > It's important to always keep in mind that checks are not necessarily
> > related to the production traffic, and that configuring one part should
> > not have any
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 3:03 PM Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Causes issues when applying the patch, because git gets confused and
> believes this to be the patch.
> I tend to indent this type of "literal code block" within my commit
> message with 4 spaces for clarity.
indeed, good point, will fix if I
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 04:57:15PM +0100, William Dauchy wrote:
> While giving a fresh try to `set server ssl` (which I wrote), I realised
> the behavior is a bit inconsistent. Indeed when using this command over
> a server with ssl enabled for the data path but also for the health
> check path we
William,
as a heads up, this part of the commit message:
On 1/6/22 4:57 PM, William Dauchy wrote:
The alternative solution was to restore the previous state, but I
believe this will create even more confusion in the future:
--- a/src/server.c
+++ b/src/server.c
@@ -2113,8 +2113,11 @@ void srv_
While giving a fresh try to `set server ssl` (which I wrote), I realised
the behavior is a bit inconsistent. Indeed when using this command over
a server with ssl enabled for the data path but also for the health
check path we have:
- data and health check done using tls
- emit `set server be_foo/
17 matches
Mail list logo
