Response.getWriter(), getOutputStream(), setContentLength() spec issues

2011-02-25 Thread Mark Thomas
The changes [1] for bug 50748 [2] (be aware the bug number changed) have triggered some Servlet 3.0 TCK failures. I don't want to get into the details of those tests, but I do want to discuss the root cause. Consider the following scenario: Servlet knows it will return exactly 100 bytes of

Re: Response.getWriter(), getOutputStream(), setContentLength() spec issues

2011-02-25 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
2011/2/25 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org: The changes [1] for bug 50748 [2] (be aware the bug number changed) have triggered some Servlet 3.0 TCK failures. I don't want to get into the details of those tests, but I do want to discuss the root cause. Consider the following scenario: Servlet

svn commit: r1074597 - /tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/JSSESupport.java

2011-02-25 Thread markt
Author: markt Date: Fri Feb 25 15:58:08 2011 New Revision: 1074597 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1074597view=rev Log: Avoid NPEs trying to re-negotiate with NIO Modified: tomcat/trunk/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/jsse/JSSESupport.java Modified:

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50831] New: j_security_check handling doesn't handle original request anchors

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831 Summary: j_security_check handling doesn't handle original request anchors Product: Tomcat 6 Version: 6.0.29 Platform: PC Status: NEW Severity: normal

svn commit: r1074675 - in /tomcat/trunk: java/org/apache/coyote/http11/ java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/ webapps/docs/

2011-02-25 Thread markt
Author: markt Date: Fri Feb 25 19:19:13 2011 New Revision: 1074675 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1074675view=rev Log: Fix https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49284 Support SSL re-negotiation in the HTTP NIO connector There is a fair amount of renaming in this patch. The

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49284] Implement SSL renegotiation for the NIO connector

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49284 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50831] j_security_check handling doesn't handle original request anchors

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831 Marc Batchelor mbatche...@pentaho.com changed: What|Removed |Added OS/Version||All ---

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50832] New: Missing mod_jk x64

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50832 Summary: Missing mod_jk x64 Product: Tomcat 7 Version: unspecified Platform: PC Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: Integration

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50831] j_security_check handling doesn't handle original request anchors

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50831 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

Re: Response.getWriter(), getOutputStream(), setContentLength() spec issues

2011-02-25 Thread Christopher Schultz
Mark, On 2/25/2011 7:01 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: So, the questions we need to decide: 1. Is the fix for bug 50748 correct? I think it is. +0 2. Should Tomcat try and handle this situation (e.g. if any bytes have been written by a filter, commit the response). This could be tricky to get

Re: svn commit: r1074675 - in /tomcat/trunk: java/org/apache/coyote/http11/ java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/ webapps/docs/

2011-02-25 Thread Filip Hanik - Dev Lists
This looks like a CPU spinning handshake to me. The operation handshake(true, true); returns an IO interest to be registered with a selector. If the client is slow here or misbehaving, you could end up in a end less loop, and hence we can have introduced a very simple DoS vulnerability here.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 50832] Missing mod_jk x64

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50832 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46802] Unable to locate mod_jk for 64-bit machine

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46802 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 --- Comment #7 from ste...@navolutions.com 2011-02-25 15:26:49 EST --- http://www.wampserver.com/en/download.php has a x64 binary. So yes there is a point and there is someone else who already builds so it is not something that wont fix.

Re: svn commit: r1074675 - in /tomcat/trunk: java/org/apache/coyote/http11/ java/org/apache/tomcat/util/net/ webapps/docs/

2011-02-25 Thread Mark Thomas
On 25/02/2011 20:16, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: This looks like a CPU spinning handshake to me. Opps. The operation handshake(true, true); returns an IO interest to be registered with a selector. If the client is slow here or misbehaving, you could end up in a end less loop, and hence

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 ste...@navolutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 ste...@navolutions.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49198] There are no binaries for mod_jk for 64bit?

2011-02-25 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49198 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|LATER |WONTFIX --- Comment

Re: Response.getWriter(), getOutputStream(), setContentLength() spec issues

2011-02-25 Thread Mark Thomas
On 25/02/2011 19:38, Christopher Schultz wrote: Where does this fail the TCK? Do we have a broken Filter, or does the TCK test an unusual/stupid scenario? I am afraid I can't be more specific about this, the TCK is protected by an NDA. For that reason, I deliberately simplified my example to