[Ubuntu-ha] [Bug 1884149] Re: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if unique-id-header is used

2020-06-22 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Thanks Simon, taking a look at that change then ... -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu High Availability Team, which is subscribed to haproxy in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1884149 Title: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if

[Ubuntu-ha] [Bug 1884149] Re: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if unique-id-header is used

2020-06-22 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Merge proposal linked: https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/+source/haproxy/+git/haproxy/+merge/386162 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu High Availability Team, which is subscribed to haproxy in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1884149

[Ubuntu-ha] [Bug 1884149] Re: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if unique-id-header is used

2020-06-22 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
Yeah, that one looks better. The fix is in 1.8.14 and applies as-is to our code in Bionic. @Simon - would you mind keeping your test system around to test a PPA now and the SRU later on? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu High Availability Team, which is

[Ubuntu-ha] [Bug 1884149] Re: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if unique-id-header is used

2020-06-22 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
@Simon - I have a PPA for a preliminary test at https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4108/+packages If you can give it a try let me know if it works as expected. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu High Availability Team, which is

[Ubuntu-ha] [Bug 1884149] Re: haproxy crashes on in __pool_get_first if unique-id-header is used

2020-06-22 Thread Christian Ehrhardt 
** Description changed: - Version 1.8.8-1ubuntu0.10 of haproxy in Ubuntu 18.04 (bionic) crashes - with + [Impact] + + * The handling of locks in haproxy led to a state that between idle http +connections one could have indicated a connection was destroyed. In that +case the code went