Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

On 10/17/22 15:14, Richard Shaw wrote: If you can, please file an issue upstream and let me know what the URL is. Include as much info as you're able, especially any relevant log file entries. https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/issues Tha

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:12 PM Charles Dennett wrote: > > I've been testing f2b over the past few days and I can now make it fail > on demand. By that I mean the fail2ban-server process uses 100% of a > cpu and becomes unresponsive and will not respond to fail2ban-client or > process any other

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

I've been testing f2b over the past few days and I can now make it fail on demand. By that I mean the fail2ban-server process uses 100% of a cpu and becomes unresponsive and will not respond to fail2ban-client or process any other log entries (apache, sshd, etc.) whenever it attempts to proc

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

Version 1.0.1 now seems to be running. As I noted before, my problem had something to do with the dovecot jail. I did notice a few config files had .rpmnew versions after upgrading. I went through just to make sure there were no local mods. I do have .local files so I should not have made

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

On 10/14/22 13:07, Richard Shaw wrote: Interestingly, I did not have any issues, but I'm only running a sshd jail, which is one of the reasons I wanted wider testing. I verified that fail2ban was restarted (systemctl status fail2ban) and then checked the status (fail2ban-client status sshd)

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

Interestingly, I did not have any issues, but I'm only running a sshd jail, which is one of the reasons I wanted wider testing. I verified that fail2ban was restarted (systemctl status fail2ban) and then checked the status (fail2ban-client status sshd) and everything was fine. I also did a tail -

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

I saw a similar problem in my f36 system. 100% CPU usage for the fail2ban-server process after upgrading to 1.0.1-1. I also tried removing the sqlite database with no impact. fail2ban-server was so busy it would not receive connections from fail2ban-client. I enabled DEBUG logging, but that

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:55 AM Charlie Dennett wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:57 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > >> I have disabled auto-stable based on time for the updates: I have >> submitted updates for f36 and up and EPEL 9. >> >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=fail2ban >>

Re: Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:57 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > I have disabled auto-stable based on time for the updates: I have > submitted updates for f36 and up and EPEL 9. > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=fail2ban > > I would like some sort of confirmation on the update itself or by

Request for testing: fail2ban 1.0.1 update

I have disabled auto-stable based on time for the updates: I have submitted updates for f36 and up and EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=fail2ban I would like some sort of confirmation on the update itself or by direct communication that everything appears to be working prop