Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

(no subject)

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
(no subject)
January 04, 2017 03:50PM
 Hi, Thank you very much for fix. I just want to mention that I had this issue in 1.6.11 too.My name is Aleksey Gordeev. I'm glad that my information was useful. Also I will wait any commit, branch or tag to test it. It is very easy to test it.  I found it and fixed it! It was me again who added a bug in 1.7 with the optimizations for largeheaders and large requests. If certain conditions are met, we could readthe \r from previous data (as we guessed) and complain that the next bytewas not an LF once the remaining part arrived. I'm intending to merge the attached patch. "cas", I'm willing to add youas the reporter here since you provided lots of very valuable information,but for this it would be nice if you had a name :-) I'll backport it to 1.7. Unfortunately there's no easy workaround on anexisting configuration, so I'll produce 1.7.2 soon I guess. I'll try toadd the remaining missing information to make dumps more accurate regardingthe expected state (this would definitely had helped here). Cheers,Willy
Anonymous User
Re: (Без темы)
January 04, 2017 03:50PM
About 1.6.11. It was in the first days of December. May be I've mixed up something. I can test again tomorrow if you want 04.01.2017, 17:43, "cas@xmonetize.net" <cas@xmonetize.net>: Hi, Thank you very much for fix. I just want to mention that I had this issue in 1.6.11 too.My name is Aleksey Gordeev. I'm glad that my information was useful. Also I will wait any commit, branch or tag to test it. It is very easy to test it.  I found it and fixed it! It was me again who added a bug in 1.7 with the optimizations for largeheaders and large requests. If certain conditions are met, we could readthe \r from previous data (as we guessed) and complain that the next bytewas not an LF once the remaining part arrived. I'm intending to merge the attached patch. "cas", I'm willing to add youas the reporter here since you provided lots of very valuable information,but for this it would be nice if you had a name :-) I'll backport it to 1.7. Unfortunately there's no easy workaround on anexisting configuration, so I'll produce 1.7.2 soon I guess. I'll try toadd the remaining missing information to make dumps more accurate regardingthe expected state (this would definitely had helped here). Cheers,Willy
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login