[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-4796?focusedWorklogId=28456&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-28456
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on TS-4796:
--------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 08/Sep/16 16:37
Start Date: 08/Sep/16 16:37
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: Github user jpeach commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/947
I'm worried by the number of changes here. Has this been tested? What is
the risk of regression? Is this known to work on any platform other than Linux?
Can we add comments to describe why this is the right approach?
I note that ``NetState::error`` is not initialized, which doesn't give me a
good feeling :-/
Why do you set ``err`` to be the ``getsockopt`` failure? In most APIs you
already had the err at close time.
Why is ``NetState::error`` never cleared before doing any I/O?
Is the real fix here the fact that errors can trigger a read even when
reads are not enabled? What are the consequences of that? If that is the core
fix, then I expect we could simplify this.
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 28456)
Time Spent: 6h (was: 5h 50m)
> ATS not closing origin connections on first RST from client
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TS-4796
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-4796
> Project: Traffic Server
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: HTTP
> Reporter: Thomas Jackson
> Assignee: Thomas Jackson
> Time Spent: 6h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> *TLDR; similar to TS-4720 -- slower to close than it should, instead of never
> closing*
> As a continuation of TS-4720, while testing that the session is closed when
> we expect-- I found that it isn't.
> Although we are now closing the sessions, we aren't doing it as quickly as we
> should. In this client abort case we expect the client to abort, and ATS
> should initially continue to send bytes to the client-- as we are in the
> half-open state. After the first set of bytes are sent to the client-- the
> client will send an RST-- which should signal ATS to stop sending the request
> (and tear down the origin connection etc.).
> I'm able to reproduce this locally, and the debug output (with some
> additional comments) looks like below:
> {code}
> < FIN FROM CLIENT >
> [Aug 29 18:25:07.491] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpSM.cc:2649
> (main_handler)> (http) [0] [HttpSM::main_handler, VC_EVENT_EOS]
> [Aug 29 18:25:07.491] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpSM.cc:892
> (state_watch_for_client_abort)> (http) [0]
> [&HttpSM::state_watch_for_client_abort, VC_EVENT_EOS]
> < RST FROM CLIENT >
> Got an HttpTunnel event 100
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:1173
> (producer_handler)> (http_tunnel) [0] producer_handler [http server
> VC_EVENT_READ_READY]
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:1108
> (producer_handler_chunked)> (http_tunnel) [0] producer_handler_chunked [http
> server VC_EVENT_READ_READY]
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:203
> (read_size)> (http_chunk) read chunk size of 15 bytes
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:279
> (read_chunk)> (http_chunk) completed read of chunk of 15 bytes
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:1213
> (producer_handler)> (http_redirect) [HttpTunnel::producer_handler]
> enable_redirection: [1 0 0] event: 100
> Got an HttpTunnel event 101
> [Aug 29 18:25:13.062] Server {0x7effa538a800} DEBUG: <HttpTunnel.cc:1373
> (consumer_handler)> (http_tunnel) [0] consumer_handler [user agent
> VC_EVENT_WRITE_READY]
> write ready consumer_handler
> {code}
> In this situation the connection doesn't close here at the RST-- but rather
> on the next set of bytes from the origin to send-- which end up tripping a
> VC_EVENT_ERROR-- and tearing down the connection.
> When the client sends the first RST epoll returns a WRITE_READY event --
> which the HTTPTunnel consumer ignores completely. It seems then that when we
> recieve the WRITE_READY event we need to determine if we are already in the
> writing state-- and if so, then we should stop the transaction (since we are
> already edge-triggered).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
