On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 04:00:56PM +0000, Egor Shestakov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 05:20:06PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 02:36:17PM +0000, Egor Shestakov wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/src/acme.c b/src/acme.c
> > > > > > index eb7137b4c..437528c08 100644
> > > > > > --- a/src/acme.c
> > > > > > +++ b/src/acme.c
> > > > > > @@ -800,8 +800,8 @@ static int cfg_postsection_acme()
> > > > > > /* tries to open the account key */
> > > > > > if (stat(path, &st) == 0) {
> > > > > > if (ssl_sock_load_key_into_ckch(path, NULL,
> > > > > > store->data, &errmsg)) {
> > > > > > - memprintf(&errmsg, "%s'%s' is present but
> > > > > > cannot be read or parsed.\n", errmsg && *errmsg ? errmsg : NULL,
> > > > > > path);
> > > > > > - if (errmsg && *errmsg)
> > > > > > + memprintf(&errmsg, "%s'%s' is present but
> > > > > > cannot be read or parsed.\n", errmsg, path);
> > > > > > + if (errmsg)
> > > > > > indent_msg(&errmsg, 8);
> > > > > > err_code |= ERR_ALERT | ERR_FATAL | ERR_ABORT;
> > > > > > ha_alert("acme: %s\n", errmsg);
> > > > >
> > > > I can revert it and re-apply it as a separate fix if needed, though it's
> > > > not really important as most of the time it will just print "(null)" for
> > > > empty messages instead of nothing, though I'm not aware of any command
> > > > not emitting empty error messages.
> > >
> > > We get the "(null)" in the message in any case (with or without the
> > > patch).
> > > There is not bug. My patch doesn't fix something, it just eliminate an
> > > uneeded. This is reason why I didn't split it.
> >
> > Oh you're totally right indeed, I read a bit too fast because I had
> > found other occurrences doing a specific check. It's not clean to send
> > a NULL into %s, as "(null)" is GNU and not standard. Here we should
> > probably use: 'errmsg ? errmsg: ""' like at many other places.
>
> I don't know that "(null)" is GNU. Would you like revert my patch to make a
> backportable patch for this?
>
> I can do that, if you want.
>
> Maybe revert exactly this line will be easier? Although I think this may be
> confusing.
No need to revert, just patch on top of the current one, it can be
handled manually during backports.
Thanks,
Willy
