RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1598491 - RFE: HAProxy does not resolve IPv6 resolvable hostnames in the backend section
Summary: RFE: HAProxy does not resolve IPv6 resolvable hostnames in the backend section
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: haproxy
Version: 7.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 7.6
Assignee: Ryan O'Hara
QA Contact: Brandon Perkins
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-07-05 15:49 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2021-12-10 16:33 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version: haproxy-1.5.18-8.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Cause: HAProxy was not using getaddrinfo() to resolve IPv6 hostnames. Consequence: When a backend server was referred to by hostname and resovled to an IPv6 address, HAProxy would alert the user that the server had an invalid address. This would result in the server not being used. Fix: Compile HAProxy with th USE_GETADDRINFO flag, which will cause HAProxy to use getaddrinfo() to resolve hostnames instead of gethostbyname(). Result: HAProxy will now resolve all valid hostnames at runtime.
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-10-30 11:49:09 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch suggestion for haproxy.spec (1.22 KB, patch)
2018-07-05 15:52 UTC, Robert Scheck 		redhat-bugzilla: review? (rohara)
 Details | Diff
Script with steps to reproduce the issue (5.30 KB, text/plain)
2018-07-20 18:47 UTC, Robert Scheck 		redhat-bugzilla: review? (rohara)
 Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2018:3317 0 None None None 2018-10-30 11:49:12 UTC

Description Robert Scheck 2018-07-05 15:49:42 UTC 
Description of problem:
HAProxy does not resolve IPv6 resolvable hostnames in backend section.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
haproxy-1.5.18-7.el7

How reproducible:
If just provide a hostname in one of the backend sections, which resolves
to an IPv6 address, HAProxy fails to resolve these hostnames.

Actual results:
HAProxy does not resolve IPv6 resolvable hostnames in the backend section.

Expected results:
HAProxy resolves IPv6 resolvable hostnames in the backend section.

Additional info:
This is not a duplicate of bug #1575585, this is the same issue like for
the SCL-based rh-haproxy18, but just for haproxy-1.5.18-7.el7 (non-SCL).
Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2018-07-05 15:52:12 UTC 
Created attachment 1456794 [details]
Patch suggestion for haproxy.spec
Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2018-07-05 15:56:52 UTC 
Cross-filed case 02135416 in the Red Hat customer portal.
Comment 10 Robert Scheck 2018-07-20 07:11:29 UTC 
Ryan, what would you like to know?
Comment 11 Petr Barta 2018-07-20 07:18:51 UTC 
Hello Robert,
  I've updated the info about requested data in the case which is linked to this BZ, I believe you should have it in your email now. Anyway, repasting here, as it seems like you are monitoring the BZ directly as well:


-------------------------------------
I will need config files and output from haproxy showing what does/does not work. While I agree that we should be compiling with USE_GETADDRINFO and it is a fix I put into Fedora, we should not compare haproxy-1.5 to haproxy-1.8 and they are very different in many regards, including some features that resolve backend sevrer hostnames at runtime, etc.

We need output and config files so that we are sure we are fixing the core issue here (ie. something we can test).
-------------------------------------

I understand it that complete haproxy config will be needed, steps to reproduce the issue, and log from haproxy covering the time when the issue is reproduced. It would recommend to set the haproxy to debug mode for the time of the issue reproducer, to have more verbose info.

BR,
Petr
Comment 12 Robert Scheck 2018-07-20 07:21:17 UTC 
Petr, thanks. Just saw the GSS WoC after I pressed "Save Changes". Already
working to get the requested information.
Comment 13 Ryan O'Hara 2018-07-20 15:16:40 UTC 
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #10)
> Ryan, what would you like to know?

Steps to reproduce. In this case, a config file and output from haproxy showing any errors, etc. With that we have something to test/verify the the rebuild with USE_GETADDRINFO does indeed solve the problem. I'm confident it will fix the issue, but QA needs to test.
Comment 14 Robert Scheck 2018-07-20 18:47:38 UTC 
Created attachment 1467560 [details]
Script with steps to reproduce the issue

Please let me know in case the steps are not good enough for QA or
if further information etc. are required.
Comment 19 errata-xmlrpc 2018-10-30 11:49:09 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:3317
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.