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

Re: On tomcat FTBFS.


It appears that the CVE-2017-5647 fix lacked this pre-requisite:

The test case is not flacky anymore, I'm going to test full builds again.


On 07/08/2019 00:45, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> I'm investigating tomcat8's FTBFS and I confirm Abhijith's findings in a
> Jessie VM:
> - test catalina/connector/TestSendFile.java fails with nio2 connector
> but is not reliable and will report success ~1 out of 10 even with lots
> of exceptions; catalina.log will report header parsing error and return 400
> - it passes reliably without CVE-2017-5647.patch
> - the test certificate did expire on 2019-02-27 but changing the date to
> 2019-01-01 and rebuilding does not impact these results
> (incidentally the test certs seems to depend on an external CA
> ca-test.tomcat.apache.org, fixing the certs will require switching to
> the new-style local CA in tomcat8 - if fixing the certs is needed)
> As you fixed CVE-2017-5647 as well as generated the last jessie upload,
> I would be interested in your take on this :)
> TestSendFile only got trivial changes, so I guess I'll look for a fix in
> later changes affecting files modified by CVE-2017-5647.
> Still, I'm surprised updates were built given this situation - did
> everybody got lucky with the flacky test or did I miss something?
> Cheers!
> Sylvain
> On 27/07/2019 20:30, Abhijith PA wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I don't think the link you gave on commit [fe932dd39d] is the reason for
>> FTBFS. I tried building on a VM that matches the certificate date and it
>> was successful. I also tried disabling all ssl related tests and was fine.
>> While doing these all I found TestSendFile test is the culprit. In
>> CVE-2017-5647 security patch a good amount of changes is applied for
>> SendFile*.java and *Nio2*.java. These are mostly about conditions on how
>> long the socket of sendfile keep active and to take away from it. But I
>> couldn't see any those change in its test file. Please take a look on
>> the attached patch. :)
>> --abhijith

Reply to: