New fixes yesterday; slightly revised patch to match.

  The -3.patch now covers every one of my test cases flawlessly,
  please ruthlessly test/abuse/review this final(?) patch.

git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x@219496 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index c656088f349c09f334ce7f3df83e7ed13f45fd1c..e60d614f86c6d2a02c5064388a30d3353ee22c0c 100644 (file)
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
       sense at all.  Patch to migrate request-body-handling from trunk/ based
       on 2.1-dev request body handling behavior (although just a bit more
       conservative on the side of C-L spooling)...
-          http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.0-proxy-request-2.patch
+          http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.0-proxy-request-3.patch
       Revert r219061 to properly test this patch, as r219061 masks the
       underlying bug (although it is a -good- patch in and of itself).
 
@@ -123,14 +123,14 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
                  C-L body received.  If the origin kicks out LENGTH_REQUIRED
                  for a T-E body it's always up to the client to react.
                  Note proxy-sendchunks can override this behavior.
-
-         trawick noted on list: why force-proxy-http-1.0 if the client is an
-                 HTTP/1.0 request? [p]
-         wrowe   Because we aren't going to keep it alive if the client is an
-                 HTTP/1.0 who's about to disconnect on us anyways.  Minimize
-                 possible confusion over expected request/response headers.
-         roy     noted on list: that violates the RFC
-         wrowe   this change is dropped then :)
+         roy     Notes on list: we must always prefer C-L if it's going to fit
+                 in our brigade.
+         wrowe   good point; the revised patch prereads MAX_MEM_SPOOL and will
+                 try reading that before choosing C-L or T-E.
+         wrowe   adds; After testing, I've determined one brigade isn't enough,
+                 so I've extended this to a loop up to MAX_MEM_SPOOL, we will
+                 fetch up enough body to fill MAX_MEM_SPOOL and hopefully
+                 hit the C-L code path most of the time.
 
          trawick We are counting bytes in stream_reqbody_cl but filters can
                  change the size? [p]
@@ -138,10 +138,16 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
                  the filter stack is unchanged from proto_input_filters.  The
                  protocol filters shouldn't be changing content size.  And when
                  it happens, we have to barf or we have a split request.
+                 The old behavior was worse; we would stream the request body
+                 in additional cases without looking to see if the byte count
+                 matched Content-Length.  Easy opportunity for split requests.
 
          trawick What specifically was done for conformance to RFC 2616? [p]
          wrowe   Elect the appropriate body handling, and ensure that body
-                 request contains the required *single* T-E or C-L header.
+                 request contains the required *single* T-E or C-L header,
+                 and there are far few code paths to stream_reqbody_cl which
+                 was most likely to create split requests by reporting the
+                 wrong C-L.
 
          trawick Please split philosophy from rfc violations from security 
                  fixes in the CHANGES log? [p]
@@ -151,11 +157,6 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
                  the issues of correctly sending the body and choosing the
                  transport flavor.
 
-         roy     Notes on list: we must always prefer C-L if it's going to fit
-                 in our brigade.
-         wrowe   good point; the revised patch prereads MAX_MEM_SPOOL and will
-                 try reading that before choosing C-L or T-E.
-
 
 PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ please append new backports at the end of this list not the top. ]