Re: Haproxy 1.6.5 listens on all IPv4 addresses

2016-07-02 Thread Cyril Bonté
Le 02/07/2016 à 23:22, Hoggins! a écrit : Thanks Cyril. I discovered the answer while you were writing yours. Sorry for the noise. If you plan to upgrade to 1.6.6, be aware of a regression which may hurt you. Willy has already reverted the commit on the master branch :

Re: Haproxy 1.6.5 listens on all IPv4 addresses

2016-07-02 Thread Hoggins!
Thanks Cyril. I discovered the answer while you were writing yours. Sorry for the noise. Hoggins! Le 02/07/2016 22:48, Cyril Bonté a écrit : > Le 02/07/2016 à 22:45, Hoggins! a écrit : >> Oh my ! >> >> It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version >> haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 ! >> >>

Re: Haproxy 1.6.5 listens on all IPv4 addresses

2016-07-02 Thread Cyril Bonté
Le 02/07/2016 à 22:45, Hoggins! a écrit : Oh my ! It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 ! Well, I have a huge problem since I just upgraded and the mess is all around, listening on all ports and all IPv4 addresses. Can you summarize what I should do ?

Re: Haproxy 1.6.5 listens on all IPv4 addresses

2016-07-02 Thread Hoggins!
Oh my ! It's just happening to me on Fedora 24 with version haproxy-1.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64 ! Well, I have a huge problem since I just upgraded and the mess is all around, listening on all ports and all IPv4 addresses. Can you summarize what I should do ? Recompile with which options ? Thanks !

Re: Re: [PATCH] MINOR: dns: support advertising UDP message size.

2016-07-02 Thread Remi Gacogne
Hi, > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:13:56PM +0200, Conrad Hoffmann wrote: >> Yeah, I was pondering the same thing. DNS servers not capable of that >> extensions (very few, I think) would ignore it, so always adding the OPT >> record would be safe indeed. I would be very careful about that. A lot of

Re: Re: [PATCH] BUG/MINOR: ssl: fix potential memory leak in ssl_sock_load_dh_params()

2016-07-02 Thread Remi Gacogne
Hi Willy, Roberto, Emeric, On 06/30/2016 08:12 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > I checked the man page for SSL_CTX_set_tmp_dh() and it does not mention > anything regarding the need to free the param or not. And the example > that comes with it doesn't involve a call to DH_free(). It's a mess, I