You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2011/09/05 01:26:32 UTC
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
On 9/3/2011 2:49 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> With this fix, I get no testcase failures and this skippage:
Bingo, stared at that code for hours, finally realized I had
re-extracted a -2.2 labeled patch instead of correcting the -2.0
patch... argh!!!
Will incorporate the past couple of trunk/2.2 corrections and
propose for backport... if accepted we'll post it as the official
apply_to_2.0.64 patch, with or without a .65 tag. Will also suggest
we tag apr 0.9.20 in the coming few days so if anyone wants to work
in any other corrections, do so in the very near term.
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.09.2011 15:00, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
>>> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
>>
>> That's already done for some time now;
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
>>
>> although I still need to update CHANGES already.
>
> Now changed, and rechecked our merged rev. This looks good to go
> if you would like to move forwards.
>
> Did anyone else have immediate concerns for this 0.9 branch?
I just did a quick check for the current 0.9.x heads:
1) APR
======
make check (testall) crashes when buildingout of tree, because test/data
isn't found. If I copy it in, I get one failure:
Failed tests in Socket Creation:
1) sendto_receivefrom: expected <0> but was <126>
But that's not a regression from 0.9.19.
2) APU-UTIL
===========
Builds and checks fine.
3) APR-ICONV
============
Build fails:
.../r1167521/./lib/iconv_ces_euc.c: In function 'apr_iconv_euc_open':
.../r1167521/./lib/iconv_ces_euc.c:65: error: invalid lvalue in assignment
Line is:
CESTOSTATE(ces) = state;
which is
((iconv_ces_euc_state_t *)(ces)->data) = state;
It is old code, so probably not a regression. IMHO the fix would be:
Index:
/shared/build/dev/httpd/sources/apr-iconv/0.9.x/r1167521/lib/iconv_ces_euc.c
===================================================================
---
/shared/build/dev/httpd/sources/apr-iconv/0.9.x/r1167521/lib/iconv_ces_euc.c
(revision 1167521)
+++
/shared/build/dev/httpd/sources/apr-iconv/0.9.x/r1167521/lib/iconv_ces_euc.c
(working copy)
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
state->nccs = ces->mod->im_depcnt;
for (i = ces->mod->im_depcnt; i; i--, depmod = depmod->im_next)
state->ccs[i - 1] = depmod;
- CESTOSTATE(ces) = state;
+ ces->data = (void *)state;
return APR_SUCCESS;
}
and then again
.../r1167521/./ces/ucs2-internal.c: In function 'convert_from_ucs':
.../r1167521/./ces/ucs2-internal.c:62: error: invalid lvalue in increment
.../r1167521/./ces/ucs2-internal.c: In function 'convert_to_ucs':
.../r1167521/./ces/ucs2-internal.c:74: error: invalid lvalue in increment
Haven't checked those for fixes yet. Need to rush for something to eat
now :)
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 9/11/2011 7:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll plan to get started looking for concerns and rolling in time to
>>> have candidates available before I leave for Redwood Shores early
>>> Monday.
>>
>> err, add 1 day to that estimate :(
>
> I hope you aren't deferring your departure? I'm happy to T&R apr
> if it lets you out of town that much sooner (and I'm sure there
> are others who would be equally willing to help you to vacation!)
not vacation unfortunately, and not deferred... I just need to T&R
Monday evening instead of Sunday evening (sorry for the obliqueness)
if anyone wants to go ahead during the day then great; otherwise I
should be okay this evening
thanks!
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/11/2011 7:18 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> I'll plan to get started looking for concerns and rolling in time to
>> have candidates available before I leave for Redwood Shores early
>> Monday.
>
> err, add 1 day to that estimate :(
I hope you aren't deferring your departure? I'm happy to T&R apr
if it lets you out of town that much sooner (and I'm sure there
are others who would be equally willing to help you to vacation!)
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
>>>> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
>>>
>>> That's already done for some time now;
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
>>>
>>> although I still need to update CHANGES already.
>>
>> Now changed, and rechecked our merged rev. This looks good to go
>> if you would like to move forwards.
>
> I'll plan to get started looking for concerns and rolling in time to
> have candidates available before I leave for Redwood Shores early
> Monday.
err, add 1 day to that estimate :(
>
>>
>> Did anyone else have immediate concerns for this 0.9 branch?
>>
>>> I hadn't attempted to port fnmatch tests to CuTest, if anyone is
>>> interested in doing so, be my guest.
>>
>> No interest in porting, here, I don't see a whole lot of reasons
>> to do so as the code is effectively identical.
>>
>
> Maybe I'll hack something up just quick enough to check for mortal
> embarrassment. (A bit of cut and paste and #define should suffice.)
>
>
> --
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
>>>> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
>>>
>>> That's already done for some time now;
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
>>>
>>> although I still need to update CHANGES already.
>>
>> Now changed, and rechecked our merged rev. This looks good to go
>> if you would like to move forwards.
>
> I'll plan to get started looking for concerns and rolling in time to
> have candidates available before I leave for Redwood Shores early
> Monday.
>
>>
>> Did anyone else have immediate concerns for this 0.9 branch?
>>
>>> I hadn't attempted to port fnmatch tests to CuTest, if anyone is
>>> interested in doing so, be my guest.
>>
>> No interest in porting, here, I don't see a whole lot of reasons
>> to do so as the code is effectively identical.
>>
>
> Maybe I'll hack something up just quick enough to check for mortal
> embarrassment. (A bit of cut and paste and #define should suffice.)
test_fnmatch() and test_fnmatch_test() from 1.4.x branch are happy,
after a bit of quick hackery
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:00 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
>>> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
>>
>> That's already done for some time now;
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
>>
>> although I still need to update CHANGES already.
>
> Now changed, and rechecked our merged rev. This looks good to go
> if you would like to move forwards.
I'll plan to get started looking for concerns and rolling in time to
have candidates available before I leave for Redwood Shores early
Monday.
>
> Did anyone else have immediate concerns for this 0.9 branch?
>
>> I hadn't attempted to port fnmatch tests to CuTest, if anyone is
>> interested in doing so, be my guest.
>
> No interest in porting, here, I don't see a whole lot of reasons
> to do so as the code is effectively identical.
>
Maybe I'll hack something up just quick enough to check for mortal
embarrassment. (A bit of cut and paste and #define should suffice.)
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/6/2011 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
>> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
>
> That's already done for some time now;
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
>
> although I still need to update CHANGES already.
Now changed, and rechecked our merged rev. This looks good to go
if you would like to move forwards.
Did anyone else have immediate concerns for this 0.9 branch?
> I hadn't attempted to port fnmatch tests to CuTest, if anyone is
> interested in doing so, be my guest.
No interest in porting, here, I don't see a whole lot of reasons
to do so as the code is effectively identical.
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/6/2011 9:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
> someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
That's already done for some time now;
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/branches/0.9.x/strings/
although I still need to update CHANGES already.
I hadn't attempted to port fnmatch tests to CuTest, if anyone is
interested in doing so, be my guest.
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 2:49 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> With this fix, I get no testcase failures and this skippage:
>
> Bingo, stared at that code for hours, finally realized I had
> re-extracted a -2.2 labeled patch instead of correcting the -2.0
> patch... argh!!!
>
> Will incorporate the past couple of trunk/2.2 corrections and
> propose for backport... if accepted we'll post it as the official
> apply_to_2.0.64 patch, with or without a .65 tag. Will also suggest
> we tag apr 0.9.20 in the coming few days so if anyone wants to work
> in any other corrections, do so in the very near term.
Any idea when you will have time/inclination to update the 2.0.64
patch? I expect to have a bit of time to spend either working on the
patch or testing it.
I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.
Re: Appropriate patches for 2.2.19 and 2.0.64?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 2:49 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> With this fix, I get no testcase failures and this skippage:
>
> Bingo, stared at that code for hours, finally realized I had
> re-extracted a -2.2 labeled patch instead of correcting the -2.0
> patch... argh!!!
>
> Will incorporate the past couple of trunk/2.2 corrections and
> propose for backport... if accepted we'll post it as the official
> apply_to_2.0.64 patch, with or without a .65 tag. Will also suggest
> we tag apr 0.9.20 in the coming few days so if anyone wants to work
> in any other corrections, do so in the very near term.
Any idea when you will have time/inclination to update the 2.0.64
patch? I expect to have a bit of time to spend either working on the
patch or testing it.
I can take care of T&R of APR 0.9.20 in a couple of days provided that
someone first gets CVE-2011-1928 resolved in that branch.