deps: Revert inetaf/tcpproxy commit 2862066 #386
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This causes a regression in gvproxy when it's used by podman: containers/podman#23616 Thanks to Maciej Szlosarczyk <[email protected]> for investigating and finding the faulty commit! Reverting inetaf/tcpproxy commit 2862066 is a bit convoluted, as we need to first undo the module name change (inet.af/tcpproxy -> github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy) done in commit 600910c and then a go module `replace` directive to redirect the no-longer existing inet.af/tcpproxy to the commit we want in github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy/ This way, the module name in gvisor-tap-vsock go.mod and in github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy go.mod are the same (inet.af/tcpproxy), and we can use older commits in this repository. It's unclear what's causing the regression, as the commit log/PR description/associated issue don't provide useful details: inetaf/tcpproxy@2862066 The best I could find is: tailscale/tailscale#10070 > The close in the handler sometimes occurs before the buffered data is forwarded. The proxy could be improved to perform a half-close dance, such that it will only mutually close once both halves are closed or both halves error. and inetaf/tcpproxy#21 which seems to be the same issue as inetaf/tcpproxy#38 which is the issue fixed by the commit triggering the regression. What could be happening is that before inetaf/tcpproxy commit 2862066, as soon as one side of the connection was closed, the other half was also closed, while after commit 2862066, the tcpproxy code waits for both halves of the connection to be closed. So maybe we are missing a connection close somewhere in gvproxy's code :-/ Signed-off-by: Christophe Fergeau <[email protected]>
|
/lgtm |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cfergeau, praveenkumar The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-merge-bot
bot
merged commit bc89949
into
containers:main
19 of 22 checks passed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This causes a regression in gvproxy when it's used by podman:
containers/podman#23616
Thanks to Maciej Szlosarczyk [email protected] for investigating and
finding the faulty commit!
Reverting inetaf/tcpproxy commit 2862066 is a bit convoluted, as we need
to first undo the module name change (inet.af/tcpproxy ->
github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy) done in commit 600910c
and then a go module
replacedirective to redirect the no-longerexisting inet.af/tcpproxy to the commit we want in github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy/
This way, the module name in gvisor-tap-vsock go.mod and in
github.com/inetaf/tcpproxy go.mod are the same (inet.af/tcpproxy), and
we can use older commits in this repository.
It's unclear what's causing the regression, as the commit log/PR
description/associated issue don't provide useful details:
inetaf/tcpproxy@2862066
The best I could find is:
tailscale/tailscale#10070
and inetaf/tcpproxy#21 which seems to be the
same issue as inetaf/tcpproxy#38 which is the
issue fixed by the commit triggering the regression.
What could be happening is that before inetaf/tcpproxy commit 2862066,
as soon as one side of the connection was closed, the other half was
also closed, while after commit 2862066, the tcpproxy code waits for
both halves of the connection to be closed. So maybe we are missing a
connection close somewhere in gvproxy's code :-/