Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

William A. Rowe, Jr. said: > Still looking for a vote on this fix to core for 1.3, preventing > modules from seeing an invalid C-L + T-E combination from the > client per RFC 2616. This does not apply to proxy (as implemented > now) but may affect other handlers as I noted below. The sanest > ac

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

On Aug 8, 2005, at 12:37 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Still looking for a vote on this fix to core for 1.3, preventing modules from seeing an invalid C-L + T-E combination from the client per RFC 2616. This does not apply to proxy (as implemented now) but may affect other handlers as I note

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

Still looking for a vote on this fix to core for 1.3, preventing modules from seeing an invalid C-L + T-E combination from the client per RFC 2616. This does not apply to proxy (as implemented now) but may affect other handlers as I noted below. The sanest action seems to be; adopt our 2.0 core c

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

At 04:11 PM 7/19/2005, Joe Orton wrote: >On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: >> Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone? >> >> This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today, >> since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E >> for proxy request bodies. > >Since th

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone? > > This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today, > since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E > for proxy request bodies. Since the 1.3 proxy already rejects such requests what d

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone? This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today, since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E for proxy request bodies. Bill At 03:26 PM 7/15/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >folks, the same patch Paul/Joe worked out for 2.1, then 2.0, >should s

Re: [patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

Ok, I'm a dork - those apr_'s are ap_'s in 1.3. My bad - sorry. Still a wise choice, grab it unmauled by email from http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-1.3-proto-cl-te.patch At 03:26 PM 7/15/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >folks, the same patch Paul/Joe worked out for 2.1, then 2.0, >should

[patch 1.3] The http_protocol.c C-L + T-E patch

folks, the same patch Paul/Joe worked out for 2.1, then 2.0, should still probably fall on 1.3 even though proxy is not affected. Other modules surely could be hit. Votes/Comments? I think this is it for getting 1.3.34 out. Index: src/main/http_protocol.c ===