https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Alberto Linares changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
OS|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Alberto Linares changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS|All |Windows 10
Version|9.0.31
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #13 from Xing ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #12)
> The correct line terminator for an HTTP/1.0 request is CRLF ("/r/n"). You
> should use that.
Thanks a lot, I'm compiling :)
Xing
--
You are receiving this mail becau
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #12 from Mark Thomas ---
The correct line terminator for an HTTP/1.0 request is CRLF ("/r/n"). You
should use that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #11 from Xing ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #10)
> (In reply to Xing from comment #9)
> > I don't think the current solution resolved all the header issues.
> > For example, our project use Socket TCP to monitor Tomcat s
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #10 from Mark Thomas ---
(In reply to Xing from comment #9)
> I don't think the current solution resolved all the header issues.
> For example, our project use Socket TCP to monitor Tomcat status like this:
> "get /platform HTTP/1.0
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #9 from Xing ---
I don't think the current solution resolved all the header issues.
For example, our project use Socket TCP to monitor Tomcat status like this:
"get /platform HTTP/1.0\n\n" (double \n, no \r)
Before version 8.5.50
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
david.keel...@tylertech.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.keel...@tylertech.co
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #8 from Em Domingues ---
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #7)
> (In reply to Em Domingues from comment #6)
> > I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination
> > of the patch for this issue and th
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #7 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Em Domingues from comment #6)
> I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination
> of the patch for this issue and the previous "strict header value parsing"
> commit
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #6 from Em Domingues ---
I assume this was intentional, but in the event it wasn't, the combination of
the patch for this issue and the previous "strict header value parsing" commit
have resulted in Tomcat rejecting all requests tha
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #5 from Christian H. ---
Thanks for the fast reaction and fix (y).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-m
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On 10/03/2020 13:58, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On 3/10/20 08:52, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
>>>
>>> --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas --- Thanks.
>>> I'm able to reproduce this. I'm work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Mark,
On 3/10/20 08:52, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
>>
>> --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas --- Thanks.
>> I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on som
На вт, 10.03.2020 г. в 14:52 Mark Thomas написа:
>
> On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
> > Thanks. I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on some additional test
cases
> > and a fix
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:52 PM Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
> > Thanks. I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on some additional test
> cases
> > and a
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:52 PM Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
> >
> > --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
> > Thanks. I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on some additional test
> cases
> > and a
On 10/03/2020 10:14, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
>
> --- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
> Thanks. I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on some additional test cases
> and a fix.
>
Moving to the dev@ list as this isn't really related to f
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas ---
Thanks. I'm able to reproduce this. I'm working on some additional test cases
and a fix.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #2 from Christian H. ---
It's just some large requests (a lot of cookies).
I have done some wireshark traffic recordings. For example one request was
split into a 2948 bytes TCP packet (ending with CR) and a 539 bytes packet
(star
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64210
--- Comment #1 from Mark Thomas ---
I'll take a look.
What is triggering the headers to split across multiple TCP packets? That seems
a little unusual.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
23 matches
Mail list logo
