On 30/05/18 10:00, Sven Buesing wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> Hello Mark,
>
> @markt: as this change is from you, I've added you in cc. Please let me know
> if you're fine with this.
No, I am not. Please do not send direct mail to Tomcat committers. If
you have a Tomcat related question, it
Hello everyone,
Hello Mark,
@markt: as this change is from you, I've added you in cc. Please let me know if
you're fine with this.
Since Tomcat 7.0.87 Coyote has added a validation check for Host-Headers.
The validation seems to expect that a host header is always a FQDN.
But in common DNS
ems pretty stable and in use.
> That said, I'm not interested in particular in IPvFuture implementation - I
> thought it would help me getting to know Tomcat better - if there's
> anything else that is more important/urgent and is suitable for someone new
> to Tomcat, please share s
d in particular in IPvFuture implementation - I
thought it would help me getting to know Tomcat better - if there's
anything else that is more important/urgent and is suitable for someone new
to Tomcat, please share some pointers. I don't see this as task assignment
but more as providing the c
get started but that
shouldn't be see as assigning areas to work on.
Other possibilities are:
- performance improvements for the Host header validation
- improving code coverage generally for any of the HTTP parsing code
- any that attracts your interest
I'm looking at the code coverage
I can prepare a patch.
Other possibilities are:
>
> - performance improvements for the Host header validation
>
> - improving code coverage generally for any of the HTTP parsing code
>
> - any that attracts your interest
I'm looking at the code coverage and will take a look at hos
On 31/03/17 14:41, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 31/03/17 09:43, Katya Todorova wrote:
>> I've created a separate pull request for leading zeros issue since I think
>> it requires additional discussion whether to be submitted or not. Although
>> this fix honors the specification, it leads to
:
http://markmail.org/message/vp5voob7elspflax
Other possibilities are:
- performance improvements for the Host header validation
- improving code coverage generally for any of the HTTP parsing code
- any that attracts your interest
Kind regards,
Mark
--
> You can either create a pull request on github or create a Bugzilla
> issue and attach a patch.
> Mark
>
I've created a separate pull request for leading zeros issue since I think
it requires additional discussion whether to be submitted or not. Although
this fix honors the specification, it
On 29/03/17 15:16, Katya Todorova wrote:
>>
>> I recommend using the code coverage reports as a guide.
>>
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/tomcat/tomcat9/coverage/
>
>
>>
>> and add test cases if they increase code coverage. Hmm. It looks like
>> there is some low hanging fruit in the parsing
>
> I recommend using the code coverage reports as a guide.
>
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/tomcat/tomcat9/coverage/
>
> and add test cases if they increase code coverage. Hmm. It looks like
> there is some low hanging fruit in the parsing code to improve coverage.
>
> You can run the tests
On 29/03/17 07:06, Katya Todorova wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
>> tes
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
> tests.
> >> It includes a performance test whic
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit
> tests.
> >> It includes a performance test whic
On 28/03/17 15:23, Katya Todorova wrote:
> Hi,
>> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit tests.
>> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
>> - that the performance impact is in the noise. I'd like to see better
&g
Hi,
> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit tests.
> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
> - that the performance impact is in the noise. I'd like to see better
> performance for full IPv6 addresses but the curren
On 22/03/17 14:13, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2017-03-21 18:01 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
>> On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about an option to disable the validity-checking, in case someone
>>> in the
2017-03-21 18:01 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas :
> On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
> wrote:
>>
>>How about an option to disable the validity-checking, in case someone
>>in the field finds a case they need to support, or if they
On 21 March 2017 14:14:19 GMT+00:00, Christopher Schultz
<ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote:
>Mark,
>
>On 3/19/17 4:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of
>> unit tests.
>>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 3/19/17 4:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of
> unit tests.
>
> It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at
> least - that t
Hi,
r1787662 adds Host header validation along with a fair number of unit tests.
It includes a performance test which indicates - on my machine at least
- that the performance impact is in the noise. I'd like to see better
performance for full IPv6 addresses but the current code looks
21 matches
Mail list logo