[MINOR][PATCH] Fix segfault when trying to use seemless reload with at least an interface bound

Hi, Trying to do a seemless reload while at least one socket has been bound to a specifig interface will lead to a segfault, because the guy who wrote that code did it by copying/pasting, and forgot to change an instance of "namespace" to "iface". The attached patch should fix it. Regards,

Order of acls not important?

Hi, this might be asked before, but I didn´t found the answer yet. The following haproxy.config has the goal to use lets encrypt and https redirect together on a frontend. frontend 10.10.10.10_80 bind 10.10.10.10:80 name 10.10.10.10:80 mode http option http-keep-alive option

Re: Order of acls not important?

Hi, Op 15-3-2018 om 21:24 schreef Stefan Husch|qutic development: I thought the acls are processed from 1 to 3, Acl's are evaluated where they are used. What am I doing wrong? Is the acl-position in a haproxy-config not important? Thx, Stefan The order of the acl's themselves is not

Re: Order of acls not important?

Stefan, Am 15.03.2018 um 21:24 schrieb Stefan Husch|qutic development: > frontend 10.10.10.10_80 >bind 10.10.10.10:80 name 10.10.10.10:80 >mode http >option http-keep-alive >option log-separate-errors >option httplog >acl acl_1 path_beg -i /.well-known/acme-challenge/ >

[PATCH] BUG/MINOR: cli: Ensure all command outputs end with a LF

Hello, This patch adds some missing LF to the outputs of some commands. It may break some scripts that rely on these broken outputs but it also breaks the parsing of pipelined commands. -- Aurélien. >From 058559ce78d05c87e7c19fd7866a52ccce608a39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From:

Re: Need some help in HAPROXY setup.

Hi all. I resend this just to highlight the question from below. > Finally the question is, afaiu, how to balance based on test_ha AND > counter_out AND lua.parseElement This are different tables. Best regards Aleks Am 09.03.2018 um 18:28 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic: > Hi Amit. > > *Please keep

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

Le 15/03/2018 à 07:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit : Hi Christopher, first, thank you for this one, I know how painful it can have been! Hi Willy, Thanks for your support :) On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:56:19PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: (...) But it is not optimal and in some situations,

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

Hi Christopher, first, thank you for this one, I know how painful it can have been! On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:56:19PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: (...) > But it is not optimal and in some situations, it could be really > slower in multi-threaded mode than in single-threaded one. The

cppcheck finding

Hi, [src/51d.c:373]: (error) Invalid number of character '{' when no macros are defined. ?

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:32:41AM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: > I tested with an ugly and really unsafe/buggy hack to migrate the stream and > its client FD before waking it up, and this problem disappears. So this is > definitely the right way to handle it. But for now, this could be a

small cleanup of src/dns.c

Hello, small issue (no real impact) identified by cppcheck From 733d99f42d93898232bb8c3c953b662ee889c034 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ilya Shipitsin Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:38:38 +0500 Subject: [PATCH] CLEANUP: remove duplicate code in src/dns.c issue was identified by

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

Le 15/03/2018 à 12:16, Willy Tarreau a écrit : +static struct stream *pendconn_process_next_strm(struct server *srv, struct proxy *px) { + struct pendconn *p = NULL; + struct server *rsrv; rsrv = srv->track; if (!rsrv) rsrv = srv; + if

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: > When we scan a queue, it is locked. So on your mark, the server queue is > already locked. To remove a pendconn from a queue, we also need to have a > lock on this queue, if it is still linked. Else we can safely remove it, >

Re: segfault in haproxy=1.8.4

Le 15/03/2018 à 15:50, Willy Tarreau a écrit : On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 02:49:59PM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: When we scan a queue, it is locked. So on your mark, the server queue is already locked. To remove a pendconn from a queue, we also need to have a lock on this queue, if it is