The original thread wrt doubled response is [1] (quite long, sorry). The rationale is that the handlers should not return an HTTP_* error blindly when they fail to ap_get_brigade(), because the latter can return AP_FILTER_ERROR when some input filter responds to the client by itself (e.g. HTTP filter when LimitRequestBody is reached), and the final ap_die() needs to know about this.
Hence the fix consists in using ap_map_http_request_error() for any handler failing with ap_get_brigade(), so to translate the apr_status_t to an HTTP error code, taking care of preserving AP_FILTER_ERROR if any. [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@httpd.apache.org/msg61178.html On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > More context at your fingertips without refreshing httpd-2.2 branch, > first... > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832 > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> >> [Changing subject, don't mean to hijack the 2.4 activity train] >> >> There is a modestly important patch, already backported to 2.4.x branch, >> that is still sitting in 2.2 status. Could one more committer please >> review >> and vote on that remaining fix? >> >> Because it helps to avert an unintended doubled response in some edge >> cases, I consider this one important enough to hold up 2.2 tag for some >> more hours. >> >> Bill >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Although there are some cool things that I'd like to see in >>>> 2.4.13, I don't want to hold off any longer (plus, those >>>> cool things would be good incentive for a 2.4.14 sooner >>>> rather than later). >>>> >>>> I plan to T&R 2.4.13 on Thurs, by Noon eastern. >>> >>> >>> +1, planning to match you with a T&R of 2.2.30 on the same timetable. >>> >>> There is a nominally important last patch in 2.2 STATUS, if a third pair >>> of eyes have the cycles to review it. >> >> >
