Hi,

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 09:10:11PM +0900, ygkat wrote:
> From: Yeonggi Kim <[email protected]>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While migrating a deployment from 3.2 to 3.4 we noticed that a "ring"
> section whose "server" line targets a UNIX socket, a common way to feed
> a local "log-forward" section, is now rejected at parse time:
> 
>     'server buf1/srv1' : log server address family not supported for log
>     backend server
> 
> This used to work fine before 3.3. It comes from 23e5f18b8 ("MEDIUM:
> sink: change the sink mode type to PR_MODE_SYSLOG"), which tags a sink's
> internal forward_px with PR_MODE_SYSLOG for compatibility-check purposes
> only, but as a side effect also subjects it to _srv_check_proxy_mode()'s
> log-backend address-family checks that were only meant for real
> user-configured "mode log" backends.
> 
> While investigating we also found that the same code path lets a DGRAM
> address through unchecked (e.g. "server s1 [email protected]:1514"), which
> then segfaults at runtime in conn_select_mux_be() -> proto_is_quic(),
> since a ring's forward_px only ever expects a STREAM transport. Patch
> 1/2 closes both by reusing the PR_CAP_INT flag that 40eb1dd13 already
> sets on this exact class of internal proxies. Patch 2/2 adds a reg-test.
> 
> This should be backported up to 3.3, but only where 23e5f18b8 and
> 40eb1dd13 are already backported: without the latter, PR_CAP_INT is not
> set on forward_px and the fix becomes a silent no-op.
> 
> Note: an earlier attempt to send this was mangled by a webmail client
> (base64) and never made it to the list. Apologies if it shows up twice.
> 
> Yeonggi Kim (2):
>   BUG/MEDIUM: server: skip log backend addr checks for internal proxies
>   REGTESTS: log: check that a ring's internal server may target a UNIX
>     socket
> 
>  reg-tests/log/ring_unix_log_forward.vtc | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  src/server.c                            | 10 ++-
>  2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 reg-tests/log/ring_unix_log_forward.vtc

Thanks for your patches, they look good and test fine here, I've just
merged them both.

Willy


Reply via email to