[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: testing and review requested for Wheezy update of apache2

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 20:47:15 CET Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 11:59:17 CET Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > I would need people to start testing the package at this point, not
> > necessarily in production considering how big the change is, but your
> > comfort level will vary with the severity and complexity of services. :)
> There is a separate test suite available, though it needs some tweaks to
> make it run with the Debian config layout. I will try to find some time
> coming week- end to run it against the wheezy package with and without your
> changes.

This doesn't look too bad, but not perfect. The diff of the results from 
2.2.22-13+deb7u7 to your packages, with tweaks to make the test suite run the 
tests that are new for 2.2.32 is this:

 Test Summary Report
 t/apache/chunkinput.t             (Wstat: 0 Tests: 37 Failed: 1)
   Failed test:  3
 t/apache/contentlength.t          (Wstat: 0 Tests: 24 Failed: 8)
   Failed tests:  2, 4, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24
+t/apache/http_strict.t            (Wstat: 0 Tests: 85 Failed: 3)
+  Failed tests:  2, 8, 26
+t/apache/mmn.t                    (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 1)
+  Failed test:  2
+t/apache/server_name_port.t       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 84 Failed: 0)
+  TODO passed:   57, 60, 81, 84
 t/security/CVE-2005-3352.t        (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 1)
   Failed test:  2
-Files=116, Tests=3479, 233 wallclock secs ( 1.31 usr  0.12 sys + 51.14 cusr  
8.12 csys = 60.69 CPU)
+Files=116, Tests=3567, 238 wallclock secs ( 1.36 usr  0.07 sys + 52.43 cusr  
8.02 csys = 61.88 CPU)

The mmn.t fail is expected and ok. You haven't backported all new features 
from 2.2.32, so you should not bump the magic number to the number from 

The messages from t/apache/server_name_port.t are just unexpected PASSes, 
probably the test suite lacks proper TODO specification for 2.2.32 here.

Apart from that, your package does not cause any regressions. However, of the 
new tests for the HTTPProtocolOptions feature, three tests fail. Two of these 
have to do with NUL-Bytes in the request. 

I have put the full logs and some scripts and diffs to run the test suite at 

For jessie, I am not that far, yet. So I don't have any hints about the 
http_strict.t test fails.

In 2.4.25, the changes have been reported to break underscores in hostnames 
[2]. While these are not RFC-conforming, this is probably not something one 
should break in a security update. Therefore I would relax the hostname 
checking to also accept underscores. I think the relevant code is in vhost.c 
in fix_hostname_non_v6() .


[1] https://www.sfritsch.de/~stf/http-strict-debian/wheezy/
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851357

Reply to: