IL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:51 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_rewrite bug fix
>
>
>1.3.17 (with negotiation_module removed to prevent that problem).
>- Original Message -
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1.3.17 (with negotiation_module removed to prevent that problem).
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_r
d by lines like:
index.jsp
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_rewrite bug fix
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bill Barker wrote:
>
> > I
; "Bill Barker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_rewrite bug fix
>
>
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bill Barker wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I agree with Justin and Costin tha
sion number at
bottom )
Thanks,
Costin
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Barker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:58:00AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > And, the whole question is what does Tomcat see the request as? I
> > could make a case that it should never know about the unparsed_uri,
> > but only the uri that httpd finally resolved to and that mod_jk
> > picked up. --
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bill Barker wrote:
> Personally, I agree with Justin and Costin that mod_jk should be able to use
> the uri field.
>
> Having said that, I'd like to point out that the mod_jk.c in j-t-c is
> flat-out broken. It doesn't handle the case where the '?' itself is
> encoded. Sinc
ently popular attack on IIS, it
will show up.
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_rewrite bug fix
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:56:45AM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> > I am concerned that the loss of original escaping
> > will break somebody. For instance:
>
> As Costin pointed out, the escaping of a URI does not change its
> semantics - they s
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:56:45AM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> I am concerned that the loss of original escaping
> will break somebody. For instance:
As Costin pointed out, the escaping of a URI does not change its
semantics - they should be treated as identical by anyone who follows
the UR
in
my request to an oddly-named server.
Maybe the solution is to choose one of the three
at runtime by a mod_jk config option?
Keith
| -Original Message-
| From: David Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:45 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: [TC3.2
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 11:49:43PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> Try ap_escape_uri
That does the trick.
Here's the patch which gets things working again, thanks for all the help.
Hopefully this will get applied soon. Is there any 3.2.4 release planned to
fix the small number of bugs/problem
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> mod_jk chops off the r->unparsed_uri itself without copying. Negative
> points for style. =-) -- justin
That's true. However I'm not sure what else could we do - copy it once
again to another buffer where we chop it ? It's not very much going on
Try ap_escape_uri
Keith
| >
| > s->req_uri = ap_encode_uri(r->pool, r->uri);
| >
| > David, or anyone else interested too, would you
| > try this with some corner test cases and see if
| > it lives up to expectation?
|
| I gave it a shot and it compiled fine, but got this error at runtime
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 11:05:38PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> | This breaks query strings.
> |
> | r->uri contains only the path portion of the URL. r->unparsed_uri
> | contains the URL in its "virgin" format - as sent by the client.
>
> No, I don't believe this is quite right.
> getReque
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:41:30AM +0100, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> > Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder how Pier is addressing this in mod_webapp. I'll have to
> > > look. -- justin
> >
> > Easy as 1.2.3... WA
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 11:13:34PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> Costin's right.. seems like the problem encountered
> was that there was no way to recreate the encoding
> (or lack thereof) on the original uri. So the
> kludge/solution was to use the unparsed uri and
> chop off the query str
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 08:12:31PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Which, of course, is the right solution.
>
> Is it ? Re-escaping the URI will most likely generate something very
> different from the original, it's not symetrical. Getting a
> You could just have:
>
> s->query_string = r->args;
> /*
> * The 2.2 servlet spec errata says the uri from
> * HttpServletRequest.getRequestURI() should remain encoded.
> * [http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/errata_042700.html]
> */
> s->req_uri = ap_encod
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:13 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: Re: [TC3.2.3][PATCH] mod_jk / mod_rewrite bug fix
|
|
| On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
|
| > Which, of course, is the right solution.
|
| Is it ? Re-escaping the URI will mos
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Which, of course, is the right solution.
Is it ? Re-escaping the URI will most likely generate something very
different from the original, it's not symetrical. Getting a re-escaped
request is different from "the original, unescaped" uri. That's the
| This breaks query strings.
|
| r->uri contains only the path portion of the URL. r->unparsed_uri
| contains the URL in its "virgin" format - as sent by the client.
No, I don't believe this is quite right.
getRequestURI() in a servlet should return
r->unparsed_uri minus a query string.
Setti
Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:41:30AM +0100, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
>> Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder how Pier is addressing this in mod_webapp. I'll have to
>>> look. -- justin
>>
>> Easy as 1.2.3... WARP has a co
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:41:30AM +0100, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how Pier is addressing this in mod_webapp. I'll have to
> > look. -- justin
>
> Easy as 1.2.3... WARP has a concept of URI and QUERY STRING... Very separate
> thi
Justin Erenkrantz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wonder how Pier is addressing this in mod_webapp. I'll have to
> look. -- justin
Easy as 1.2.3... WARP has a concept of URI and QUERY STRING... Very separate
things... All I do is
req->ruri=apr_pstrdup(req->pool,r->uri);
req->args=ap
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 07:25:32PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:20:26PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately there are people who were breaking because
> > we didn't follow the spec. The better way to fix it is
> > to create an inverse function for
> > ap
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:20:26PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Unfortunately there are people who were breaking because
> we didn't follow the spec. The better way to fix it is
> to create an inverse function for
> ap_parse_uri(request_rec *r, const char *uri) [http_protocol.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:20:26PM -0400, Keith Wannamaker wrote:
>
> Unfortunately there are people who were breaking because
> we didn't follow the spec. The better way to fix it is
> to create an inverse function for
> ap_parse_uri(request_rec *r, const char *uri) [http_protocol.c]
> in mod_j
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 06:13:24PM -0700, David Rees wrote:
> --- mod_jk.c.orig Tue Aug 14 17:58:21 2001
> +++ mod_jk.cTue Aug 14 18:04:58 2001
> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@
> s->method = (char *)r->method;
> s->content_length = get_content_length(r);
> s->query_string = r->
Hi David,
Unfortunately there are people who were breaking because
we didn't follow the spec. The better way to fix it is
to create an inverse function for
ap_parse_uri(request_rec *r, const char *uri) [http_protocol.c]
in mod_jk... one that would 'unparse' the munged
r->uri rewrite and use it
30 matches
Mail list logo
