On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 04:06:42PM -0600, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> The file I transferred is 4GB in size, copied from /dev/urandom with dd.
> Did the pull from another machine on the same gigabit LAN. I picked the
> cipher by watching for TLS 1.2 ciphers shown by testssl.sh and choosing one
> that m
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:54:55AM -0700, Ryan Burn wrote:
> On the size limit, ideally we'd like to capture up to the first 128k of the
> body. But after doing some tests, it looks like we can only get up the first
> 15k, even if we specify "http-response wait-for-body time 10s at-least
> 128k". W
Good Day,
Just curious to know whether if you were able to review the email that I sent
you before.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Best Regards,
Kara Louis
From: Kara Louis
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 5:47 AM
To: haproxy@formilux.org
Subject: Hash
Hello,
If you want "definitive proof" that you're not using AES-NI instructions
during your benchmark, you could simply compile OpenSSL (and then HAproxy,
linking it to this OpenSSL version) passing "-noaes" flag to GCC in the
process.
Then, to make sure your compilation succeeded, check both res
On 10/29/21 3:58 AM, Emerson Gomes wrote:
If you want "definitive proof" that you're not using AES-NI
instructions during your benchmark, you could simply compile OpenSSL
(and then HAproxy, linking it to this OpenSSL version) passing
"-noaes" flag to GCC in the process.
I know from other tes
Willy,
On 10/29/21 8:50 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't see how this can ever match:
- we search for a space in the first characters starting at
- if we find one such space, we check if these characters are exactly
equal to the string "Bearer" (modulo the case), and if so we take
Hello Tim,
On 29/10/2021 16:57, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Willy,
On 10/29/21 8:50 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't see how this can ever match:
- we search for a space in the first characters starting at
- if we find one such space, we check if these characters are exactly
equal to
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 05:20:23PM +0200, Remi Tricot-Le Breton wrote:
> > > Rémi, am I missing something or is it just that this code snippet indeed
> > > has a bug that was not spotted by the regtests (which I'm fine with,
> > > they're regression tests, not unit tests seeking 100% coverage) ?
>
It is not useful to start a configuration where an invalid static string is
provided as the JWT algorithm. Better make the administrator aware of the
suspected typo by failing to start.
---
src/sample.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/sample.c b/src/sa
Hi Remi, Willy,
Is the length check at the start of `jwt_parse_alg()` actually useful? I would
expect that the vast majority of strings passed are valid algorithms that are
*not* `none`. Thus I expect this `if()` to almost never be `true`.
Should the `if()` be removed and a new `case 'n'` be adde
Dear list!
Author: John Roesler
Number of patches: 1
This is an automated relay of the Github pull request:
Some grammar in peers.txt
Patch title(s):
Some grammar
Link:
https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1436
Edit locally:
wget https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1436.pa
I created demo in my fork
https://github.com/chipitsine/haproxy/commit/a5047411dc39abba3d2610afd65a654839524464
how it looks: https://github.com/chipitsine/haproxy
сб, 15 мая 2021 г. в 00:24, Tim Düsterhus :
> Daniel,
> Ilya,
>
> On 5/14/21 5:45 PM, Daniel Corbett wrote:
> >> I would like t
12 matches
Mail list logo