Re: Some bug status
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: What about bug #1204 ? Can be stolen too ? :-) You are always welcome to steal any bugs I have assigned for which there is no comment by me within the last 6 hours. Regards Henrik
Re: Some bug status
Hi Henrik, At 03.32 13/09/2005, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: Just for my check, bugs #1327, #1351 and #1370 can be marked "PATCH25" ? You are looking into stealing my bugs? You are most welcome to ;-) What about bug #1204 ? Can be stolen too ? :-) Regards Guido - Guido Serassio Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
Re: Some bug status
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: But official patch for bug #1370 is only for squid_ldap_auth. Do you are speaking about bug #1389 (already applied on both 2.5 and 3.0) ? Right. Regards Henrik
Re: Some bug status
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: Henrik, you are the "SSL guru". If you have time, do you can look to bugs #859, #1269 and #1355 ? The SSL code in 3.0 is heavy refactored, and for me is very hard to understand what should be changed (if any). None of these is SSL related. All is about the CONNECT tunnel method. The 3.0 code is quite likely not OK as it is. But looking at the patches above isolated is not easy either as later patches backs out failures of earlier patches. 1355 fixes an important bug in 1269. 1269 backs out a lot of 859, replacing it with another strategy. How CONNECT should work: 0. Should close connections as early as possible when either side terminates. 1. But data pending in either direction needs to be sent before the connection is closed. 2. If the client has closed it's connection we need to close the server connection as soon as there is no more data to be sent to the server, or immediately if there is no data pending to be sent to the server. And similarily in the other direction. 3. If the client closes the connection before the server conection has been estalished then we should immediately abort the connection. No need to care for any pending data already sent to us by the client in this case. Regards Henrik
Re: Some bug status
Hi Henrik, At 03.32 13/09/2005, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: Just for my check, bugs #1327, #1351 and #1370 can be marked "PATCH25" ? You are looking into stealing my bugs? You are most welcome to ;-) This week only I have a lot of free time to spend on Squid, so I'm looking for anything that I'm able to do ... :-) #1351 and #1370 is ready to commit as-is. (and hence the report is already set to P1). For the LDAP helpers just remember to grab the official patch as the bugzilla patch only addresses one of the two.. (exact same problem in squid_ldap_group). Ok, I will compare 2.5 and 3.0 source code to check any missing thing. 1327 needs to be ported, but it is maybe best to do this after the cleaned up NTLM framework is in place and is why I did not move it to the porting queue just yet.. Kinkie? But on the other hand, thinking about what #1327 changes there is little or no conflict with the NTLM rewrite so it should be OK to move this forward immediately if you prefer. I take a look, if the forward port is simple, i will do it. Henrik, you are the "SSL guru". If you have time, do you can look to bugs #859, #1269 and #1355 ? The SSL code in 3.0 is heavy refactored, and for me is very hard to understand what should be changed (if any). Regards Guido - Guido Serassio Acme Consulting S.r.l. - Microsoft Certified Partner Via Lucia Savarino, 1 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - ITALY Tel. : +39.011.9530135 Fax. : +39.011.9781115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.acmeconsulting.it/
Re: Some bug status
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Serassio Guido wrote: Just for my check, bugs #1327, #1351 and #1370 can be marked "PATCH25" ? You are looking into stealing my bugs? You are most welcome to ;-) #1351 and #1370 is ready to commit as-is. (and hence the report is already set to P1). For the LDAP helpers just remember to grab the official patch as the bugzilla patch only addresses one of the two.. (exact same problem in squid_ldap_group). 1327 needs to be ported, but it is maybe best to do this after the cleaned up NTLM framework is in place and is why I did not move it to the porting queue just yet.. Kinkie? But on the other hand, thinking about what #1327 changes there is little or no conflict with the NTLM rewrite so it should be OK to move this forward immediately if you prefer. Regards Henrik
