https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #18 from mgrigorov ---
8.5.9 is being voted at the moment.
If everything is OK it will be available in the next few days.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #17 from Jan Kostelansky ---
dear support
when can I expect the patch to be included in tomcat 8.5 or tomcat 9 release?
I have not found it in changelog of latest tomcat 8.5
Thank you, Jan
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Violeta Georgieva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jan.kostelansky@aerosoftsys
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Violeta Georgieva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sean.wr...@citylearning.com
--- Co
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #14 from Remy Maucherat ---
I was thinking maybe the state could be reinitialized when "creating" the
output buffer, but the try/finally should be cheap and better.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Violeta Georgieva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #12 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
Seems to be fixed. No new exceptions in journal and no random
ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE errors in clients any more after reasonable long uptime
under heavy load.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #11 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
Server is now running tomcat-8.5-20161116.160434-5.tar.gz. I will check it for
exceptons later.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #10 from Violeta Georgieva ---
(In reply to Evgenij Ryazanov from comment #8)
> Yes, but it will take a couple of days I guess.
Here [1] I published a snapshot that contains the fix if you need it.
It will be great if you can test
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #9 from Remy Maucherat ---
Ok, IMO a new 8.5 is definitely needed.
--
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=60372
--- Comment #8 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
Yes, but it will take a couple of days I guess.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubs
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #7 from Violeta Georgieva ---
(In reply to Evgenij Ryazanov from comment #5)
> Oh, I see. But exception in the middle of commit() method can prevent proper
> reinitialization.
>
> @@ -347,6 +347,8 @@
> if (headerBuffer.pos
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #6 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
nextRequest() sets position back to 0, but leaves limit as is.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #5 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
Oh, I see. But exception in the middle of commit() method can prevent proper
reinitialization.
@@ -347,6 +347,8 @@
if (headerBuffer.position() > 0) {
// Sending the response header
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #4 from Violeta Georgieva ---
Hi,
(In reply to Evgenij Ryazanov from comment #3)
> It seems that check in Http11OutputBuffer.checkLengthBeforeWrite() is not
> correct.
>
> It compares with ByteBuffer.capacity(), but ByteBuffer.lim
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Evgenij Ryazanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
--- Comment #3 from Evgenij Rya
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Evgenij Ryazanov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|BufferOverflowException at |BufferOverflowException at
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
--- Comment #2 from Evgenij Ryazanov ---
You're right, now I see similar exceptions without HTTP/2 enabled. But it took
many hours after server's restart to see them. Triples of exceptions appear
with rate about 3000 per hour with random interv
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60372
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
--- Comment #1 from Remy Mau
19 matches
Mail list logo
