httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <>
Subject Re: Status of Bug # 39243
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:13:08 GMT

On 03/04/2007 01:53 AM, Kevin wrote:

> When I upload files 128kb and smaller, it works as expected.  When I
> attempt to upload files 129kb and larger, I get this:
> Error message in browser:
> Title: 413 Request Entity Too Large
> Page: Request Entity Too Large
> The requested resource
> /Members/admin/portal_factory/Image/image.2007-03-03.9545920618/atct_edit
> does not allow request data with POST requests, or the amount of data
> provided in the request exceeds the capacity limit.
> Error message in logs:
> [Sat Mar 03 19:26:35 2007] [error] [client xxx.yyy.zzz.ttt] request body
> exceeds maximum size for SSL buffer, referer:
> [Sat Mar 03 19:26:35 2007] [error] [client xxx.yyy.zzz.ttt] could not
> buffer message body to allow SSL renegotiation to proceed, referer:

Given the error messages above I think that you are affected somehow by #39243, but the reason
seems to be a little different in your case. #39243 talks about client certificates in a directory
context, but the underlying problem is the need for a SSL renegotiation, which is triggered
in the
client certificate case, but also triggered by other situations. So please do the following
(please attach all this info to the report):

1. Set the log level to debug (Attention: very verbose in the SSL case).
2. Try to upload more than 128k.
2. Add your access log and error log(s) to the report.
3. Add the configuration of your SSL host.
4. If you have any directives starting with SSL outside of your SSL host
   attach these configuration blocks too.
5. Don't forget .htaccess files that contain SSL directives.

> I've spoken with someone on the plone list who's using RHEL and
> apache/ssl/plone in the same manner that I am, and he reports not
> suffering from this problem.  I'm not sure if he has any upper limit at
> all, or if the upper limit is simply larger than 128kb.  I'm still
> talking with him.

Maybe he has a slightly different configuration (see my remarks above).

> I guess redhat has applied some sort of patch.  Does anyone know abou

I don't think so. Joe?



View raw message