пт, 2 окт. 2020 г. в 11:58, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > Guys, > > quick note, Alex contacted me offline saying his PR will be deleted > soon, asked me to save it before this happens (which I did) and not to > be contacted anymore (which I totally respect and kindly ask anyone else > to respect). > > He insisted that socks4 with tcp-checks is currently broken, which is > perfectly possible. It's impossible to figure anything from his mind- > blowing patch set anyway, since more than 95% of it is pure obfuscation > achieved using automatic and bogus reindent by an editor obviously not > configured for the C language, making the patches huge and extremely > unreadable, as tiny changes are probably hidden there. The only way to > figure the changes would actually be to compile and compare the binaries > to figure what changed! The remaining 5% seem to be debug code, hacks > such as reserving some hard-coded IP addresses to flag certain features, > and some features I don't even understand given that the code goes back > and forth along the patches and changes do not even match what the title > suggests. Also it was apparently only built on 32-bit as I spotted a few > "%u" with a size_t. Some sample fetches seem to have been removed by > accident during the refactoring. I have the series still available as > an mbox if someone ever wants to dig into it by curiosity or to learn > how not to contribute to any project, but quite frankly, whoever deployed > this in production must be extremely embarrassed now, knowing they will > never be able to apply the tiniest fix on top of this anymore, but hey, > we cannot save the world from fools and it's not our job :-/ > > Alex also sent me a piece of config supposed to reproduce the socks4 > regression regarding the checks, but I haven't tested yet, and since it > seems to include some private parts, it will have to be cleaned up first. >
can we add a ticket for that ? looks like we can add automated testing based on that (like low priority weekly job on github) > > So if anyone currently uses socks4 to talk to servers, I suggest you > run a quick test on 2.2 or 2.3 to see if health checks continue to work > over socks4 or not, in which case it's likely you'll be able to provide > an easier reproducer that will allow to fix the problem. This will save > everyone time and protect our eyeballs by keeping them away from this > blinking patch. > > Thanks, > Willy >
