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

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

    /* 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:


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!


How inappropriate to call this planet 'Earth' when it is quite clearly
                        - Arthur C. Clarke

Reply to: