[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2021-01-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 Selim Emre Toy changed: What|Removed |Added CC||selimemre...@gmail.com -- You are

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2020-10-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2020-10-26 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 Boris Petrov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #23 from Boris Petrov --- Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but if you need more stacktraces, here you go: ``` javax.ws.rs.ProcessingException: Failed to buffer the message content input stream. at

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #22 from Mark Thomas --- 9.0.26 will handle the behaviour in the original trace. That doesn't mean there isn't more "unusual" behaviour that will trigger the issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #21 from Boris Petrov --- Thanks for the tip, Mark. I'll try that tomorrow. But... is this setting still needed? I thought that Tomcat 9.0.26 would remove the need for custom configuration and would work out-of-the-box with Chrome

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #20 from Mark Thomas --- 9.0.26 fixed a typo in the attribute name. You want overheadDataThreshold in 9.0.26 onwards. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #19 from Boris Petrov --- Mark, I'm observing a similar behavior on 9.0.26. The socket is closed even when the `overheadDataThreadhold="0"` setting is set. Browser is Chromium 77.0.3865.90. I had to revert to 9.0.24 with that

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #17 from Mark Thomas --- https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1000809 The root cause currently looks to be a combination of how Chrome's buffering interacts with flow control windows that do not have an initial

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-09-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #16 from Mark Thomas --- The 2852*5, 2124, 2852*5, 2124, 2852*5, 2124, 2852*5, 2123, 1, etc pattern occurs (in Chrome at least) with a direct POST request with no libraries present. That points to Chrome being responsible for the 1

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-30 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 Boris Petrov changed: What|Removed |Added Version|9.0.x |9.0.24 -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #15 from Chen Levy --- (In reply to Boris Petrov from comment #13) > Chen Levy, if you could provide a simple sample project that, as you say, > has no external dependencies and breaks with the default Tomcat > configuration on the

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #14 from Chen Levy --- Created attachment 36744 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36744=edit Simple project demonstrating multipart issue -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #13 from Boris Petrov --- (In reply to Chen Levy from comment #11) > I encountered a similar issue where multipart form submission resulted in > none of the form parameters being visible from the servlet (no exception or > error).

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #12 from Christopher Schultz --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #10) > Which is why the threshold doesn't apply to DATA frames with the EOS (end of > stream) flag set. Sending a small request body in a single DATA frame is >

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #11 from Chen Levy --- I encountered a similar issue where multipart form submission resulted in none of the form parameters being visible from the servlet (no exception or error). I created a small test project containing a single

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-28 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Boris Petrov from comment #8) > Hi, thanks for the detailed answer. > > There is no intermediate HTTP/2 proxy. > > Before I open an issue somewhere, could you please explain me something. I'm

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Schultz --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #7) > Small HTTP/2 packets are inefficient. Lots of them are considered to be > abusive and in some servers (not Tomcat) result in a DoS. Tomcat has > expanded

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #8 from Boris Petrov --- Hi, thanks for the detailed answer. There is no intermediate HTTP/2 proxy. Before I open an issue somewhere, could you please explain me something. I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on but how

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-27 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas --- Take a look at the following lines in the log: Connection [1], Stream [7], Frame type [DATA], Flags [0], Payload size [...] It looks like there is some buffering going on. The first 6 data frames are

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-25 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #6 from Boris Petrov --- Created attachment 36736 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36736=edit Dump of the POST request This is a dump of the POST request for uploading a file (there should be 2 POST multiform

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #5 from Mark Thomas --- Correct. Tx. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #4 from Boris Petrov --- Thank you for the support, Mark. As I said, this happens with both the latest Chrome and Firefox, as well as Firefox 47 (these are the three browsers I tested with). Only when using HTTP/2. The client side

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas --- The request has triggered the overhead protection because it looks abusive (small non-final DATA frame). Setting overheadDataThreadhold to zero will disable the specific protection triggered. A debug trace

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-23 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #2 from Boris Petrov --- Created attachment 36734 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36734=edit Log This is a dump of the logging for `org.apache.coyote.http2`. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 63690] [HTTP/2] The socket [*] associated with this connection has been closed.

2019-08-23 Thread bugzilla
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63690 --- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas --- Enable debug logging for org.apache.coyote.http2 and provide the output for a single, failed request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.