Haroon Rafique wrote:
/www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16/webapps/sws.war
/www/tomcat/webapps/sws.war
this would turn my vote into -1, based on false information provided
earlier.
That should be explanation enough.
Haroon, you'd need to provide a more solid test case, if the paths
indeed are different.
Filip
On Today at 11:06am, RM=>Reinhard Moosauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RM> Hi Filip, Haroon,
RM>
RM> as far as I understand, the problem is a copy operation which copies one file
RM> on itself.
RM> Haroon showed that this is happing in his case.
RM> Unfortunately, it it not proved that this is happening in all cases.
RM> Furthermore, the removal of the second copy operation could still cause a
RM> regression in other cases.
RM>
Hi Reinhard,
I'm obviously not very familiar with the tomcat code and by no means an
expert so I didn't realize that there was copy protection involved. In any
case, all of the involved code only works if tag is non-null. To my
knowledge, I'm the only one who uses remote war deployment while using
tags, and the empirical evidence that I have suggests that the 2nd copy
operation is not necessary (it could have even been a copy-and-paste
error).
RM>
RM> Maybe we could fix the bug in a more secure way:
RM> How about adding a check to the copy()-method, so that it can no more delete a
RM> file by copying on itself?
RM> We could:
RM> 1. just ignore the copy if the 2 paths are the same
RM> 2. throw an IllegalArgumentException if the 2 paths are the same
RM>
Gotta be careful here. When I said the 2 paths are same, I generalized a
little bit. The two paths are almost the same. They are:
/www/apache-tomcat-5.5.16/webapps/sws.war
/www/tomcat/webapps/sws.war
One of them involves a symlink. They are the same as long as you consider
the fact that /www/tomcat is a symbolic link to apache-tomcat-5.5.16:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Mar 21 14:33 /www/tomcat -> apache-tomcat-5.5.16
So, my (non-binding) vote :-), would be to:
1) Remove the 2nd copy() method all together
2) Clean up copy() method to throw an IllegalArgumentException if the 2
paths are the same while *ALSO* taking into account any symbolic links.
RM>
RM> Personally, I would prefer the second solution, because it make errors
RM> like this one better to find in the future.
RM> The two code-lines removed by Haroon could have a try-catch-block to
RM> ignore the IllegArgExc here (with a bold FIXME-Message to the log!)
RM>
RM> ***
RM> I suggest to be very careful in changing this part of tomcat. This
RM> case proves again, that the test-coverage in the manager code is not
RM> pretty good. Mainly because there are many configuration and
RM> deployment scenarios, which affect its behavior. (I suffered a similar
RM> case some days ago)
RM> ***
RM>
I agree about test-coverage.
I fully appreciate and understand the need for caution. However, by their
own admission, most tomcat developers do not have the time to test the
remote deployment while tagging via ant. To my knowledge, I am the only
who uses this in production with tomcat 5.5.12+ (since I'm the only one
complaining about it for the last 6 months or so). Combined with the fact
that the whole operation is inside a if (tag != null) {} leads me to
believe that it is safe to take out the 2nd copy() method. Believe me,
with the 2nd copy() method in tact, remote deploying via ant while tagging
does *NOT* work.
RM>
RM> Please tell, if I can help
RM>
RM> Reinhard
RM>
You have helped already by replying.
Regards,
--
Haroon Rafique
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
