Re: testing and review requested for Wheezy update of apache2
On 2017-01-23 15:14:30, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2017-01-22 11:25:08, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> 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
>
> here are those tests:
>
> 2: [ "GET / HTTP/1.0\n\n" => 400],
> 8: [ "GET / HTTP/1.0\0\r\n\r\n" => 400],
> 26: [ "GET / HTTP/1.0\r\nFoo: b\0ar\r\n\r\n" => 400],
turns out the latter two here are unrelated issues. 2.2.32 includes this
code:
/* PR#43039: We shouldn't accept NULL bytes within the line */
if (strlen(*s) < bytes_handled) {
return APR_EINVAL;
}
which is fair, but not directly part of this rewrite, as far as I know
- this seems more related to this patch:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1758671
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/server/protocol.c?r1=1757394&r2=1758671&pathrev=1758671&diff_format=h
I am not sure we should factor this into the package, but without it,
test case #2 is so broken that I am worried it introduces other
regressions, so I bundled it in.
It does mean that "echo GET / | nc localhost 80" now fails, but that
seems to be the design of the Apache team, unfortunately. :( No more
"telnet into port 80" it seems?
I am really wondering why we shouldn't just package 2.2.32 after
all. the change is kind of massive, but it would make me feel much
better than the current patch set:
136 files changed, 1738 insertions(+), 4409 deletions(-)
I'm running out of hours for this month, unfortunately. I will be able
to continue the work in february, but it would probably be better for
others to pick that up before that.
I have reuploaded a new version of the package with the extra above
patch, and I believe it passes the test suite correctly now.
I am not confident enough to upload the result as is, so I would like
another LTS worker to look into this before a final upload.
Thanks so much for the review and feedback, Stefan!
A.
--
How inappropriate to call this planet 'Earth' when it is quite clearly
'Ocean'.
- Arthur C. Clarke
Reply to: