<!DOCTYPE html>
<html data-lt-installed="true">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body style="padding-bottom: 1px;">
<p>Hi All</p>
<p>Any tip on this matter? I want to upgrade to squid 6.9 but due to
this issue, i'm stuck.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/04/2024 11:53, Andre Bolinhas
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ad81a226-e4dd-4748-a15f-746e2bf9a75b@articatech.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hi Alex</p>
<p>Thanks for your help on the matter.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">The logs archive you shared previously has
expired, so I cannot double check, but from what I remember, the
shared logs did not support the above assertion, so there may be
more to the story here. However, to make progress, let's assume
that v5 configuration files are identical to v6 configuration
files. </blockquote>
If you want, I can run the same test with in a different debug
parameters, just tell which ones.
<p>I have re-uploaded the cache.log files.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://we.tl/t-AB4XuUwuf7" moz-do-not-send="true">https://we.tl/t-AB4XuUwuf7</a></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">One way to answer all of the above
questions is to look at the following output: <br>
<br>
squid -k parse ... |& grep Processing:.http_access </blockquote>
There is no diff between both squid version, you can check it here<br>
<a href="https://www.diffnow.com/report/jsrva"
moz-do-not-send="true">DiffNow - Compare Files, URLs, and
Clipboard Contents Online</a>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">The logs archive you shared previously has
expired, so I cannot double check, but from what I remember, the
shared logs did not support the above assertion, so there may be
more to the story here. However, to make progress, let's assume
that v5 configuration files are identical to v6 configuration
files.</blockquote>
The configuration files / folder are the same, the server is the
same, the only thing that changes is the Squid version<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/03/2024 17:40, Alex Rousskov
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9cd03f00-a87e-4c48-8a9c-61eb6751c0d9@measurement-factory.com">On
2024-03-25 15:13, Bolinhas André wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Yes, the configuration is the same for
both versions. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The logs archive you shared previously has expired, so I cannot
double check, but from what I remember, the shared logs did not
support the above assertion, so there may be more to the story
here. However, to make progress, let's assume that v5
configuration files are identical to v6 configuration files. <br>
<br>
1. Is there an "http_access allow all AnnotateFinalAllow" rule?
<br>
<br>
2. Is there an "http_access deny HTTP Group38 AnnotateRule28"
rule? <br>
<br>
3. Assuming the answers are "yes" and "yes", which rule comes
first? If you use include files, this question applies to the
imaginary preprocessed squid.conf file with all the include
files inlined (recursively if needed). That kind of preprocessed
configuration is what Squid effectively sees when compiling
http_access rules, one by one. Which of the two rules will Squid
see first? <br>
<br>
One way to answer all of the above questions is to look at the
following output: <br>
<br>
squid -k parse ... |& grep Processing:.http_access <br>
<br>
Replace "..." with your regular squid startup command line
options and adjust standard error redirection (|&) as needed
for your shell. Run the above command for both Squid v5 and v6
binaries. You should see output like this: <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">2024/03/29 13:31:05| Processing:
http_access allow manager <br>
2024/03/29 13:31:05| Processing: http_access deny all <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
HTH, <br>
<br>
Alex. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
*De:* Alex Rousskov <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rousskov@measurement-factory.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><rousskov@measurement-factory.com></a>
<br>
*Enviado:* segunda-feira, 25 de março de 2024 19:12 <br>
*Para:* <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org</a>
<br>
*Assunto* Re: [squid-users] ACL / http_access rules stop work
using Squid 6+ <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2024-03-22 09:38, Andre Bolinhas wrote: <br>
<br>
> In previous versions of squid, from 3 to 5.9, I use this
kind of deny <br>
> rules and they work like charm <br>
> <br>
> acl AnnotateRule28 annotate_transaction
accessrule=Rule28 <br>
> http_access deny HTTP Group38 AnnotateRule28 <br>
> <br>
> This allows me to deny objects without bump / show the
error page <br>
> (deny_info) <br>
> <br>
> But using squid 6+ this rules stop to work and
everything is allowed. <br>
> <br>
> Example: <br>
> Squid 5.9 (OK) <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ibb.co/YdKgL1Y" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ibb.co/YdKgL1Y</a>
<br>
> <br>
> Squid 6.8 (NOK) <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ibb.co/tbyY2GV" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ibb.co/tbyY2GV</a>
<br>
> <br>
> Sample of both cache.log in debug mode <br>
> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://we.tl/t-T7Nz1rVbVu" moz-do-not-send="true">https://we.tl/t-T7Nz1rVbVu</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In you v6 logs, most logged transactions are allowed because a
rule <br>
similar to the one reconstructed below is matching: <br>
<br>
http_access allow all AnnotateFinalAllow <br>
<br>
<br>
There are similar cases in v5 logs as well, but most denied v5
<br>
transactions match the following rule instead (i.e. the one
you shared <br>
above): <br>
<br>
http_access deny HTTP Group38 AnnotateRule28 <br>
<br>
<br>
In your Squid configuration, v6 allow rule is listed much
higher than v5 <br>
deny rule (#43 vs #149). I do not see any signs of Group38 or
<br>
AnnotateRule28 ACL evaluation in v6 logs, as if the rule sets
are <br>
different for two different Squid instances. Are you using the
same set <br>
of http_access rules for both Squid versions? <br>
<br>
Alex. <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
squid-users mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<lt-container></lt-container>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
squid-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org">squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users">https://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>