httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: PR#38123
Date Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:09:06 GMT
Can we back out the recently added patch, and revise the report
as STILL OPEN while this is being worked on, as far
as what is the correct solution. Right now we have a
bug which is marked as FIXED, yet with a patch that
isn't likely the best (or "most correct") solution. As
such, it's likely this will fall through the cracks
and be forgotten, and not correctly handled.

On Jan 18, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Nick Kew wrote:

> (resend - first attempt bounced mentioning www.sorbs.net)
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:02:17 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Possible fix for report 38123
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>> As far as I can see the root cause for the report 38123
>> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38123) is the  
>> missing
>> HTTP_IN filter in the error case. As I am currently unsure if this
> creates
>> any sideeffects, some remote eyes please :-).
>>
>>
>> Index: server/protocol.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- server/protocol.c»··(Revision 369902)
>> +++ server/protocol.c»··(Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -934,6 +934,8 @@
>>              ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_INFO, 0, r,
>>                            "client sent an unrecognized expectation
> value of "
>>                            "Expect: %s", expect);
>> +            ap_add_input_filter_handle(ap_http_input_filter_handle,
>> +                                       NULL, r, r->connection);
>>              ap_send_error_response(r, 0);
>>              ap_update_child_status(conn->sbh, SERVER_BUSY_LOG, r);
>>              ap_run_log_transaction(r);
>
>
> That's the same bug and fix as PR#37790!
>
> Which leads me to wonder, is there some good reason not to
> insert the input filter unconditionally somewhere earlier in
> request_post_read?  As it stands, it looks as if your fix has
> the same problem as mine: namely, it fixes the immediate problem
> but leaves the bug waiting to manifest itself anew in other
> early error conditions.
>
> I'll be back on the job on Friday: someone ping me on IRC to
> take a proper look.
>
> --
> Nick Kew
>
>


Mime
View raw message