Re: Assertion in clientProcessBody

debug_options 33,2 results in:

2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientTryParseRequest: 0xdbeac0: FD 54: request body is 226 bytes in size
2009/12/08 18:34:24| The request GET [URL] is ALLOWED, because it matched '[acl]'
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientCacheHit: refreshCheckHTTPStale returned -2
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientCacheHit: stale-while-revalidate needs revalidation
2009/12/08 18:34:24| The reply for GET [URL] is ALLOWED, because it matched 'all'
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientProcessBody: start fd=54 body_size=226 in.offset=226 cb=0x42eac0 req=(nil)
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientProcessBody: end fd=54 size=226 body_size=0 in.offset=0 cb=0x42eac0 req=(nil)
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientReadBody: start fd=54 body_size=0 in.offset=0 cb=0x45602f req=0xdbeac0
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientProcessBody: start fd=54 body_size=0 in.offset=0 cb=0x45602f req=0xdbeac0
2009/12/08 18:34:24| The request GET [URL2] is ALLOWED, because it matched '[acl]'
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientCacheHit: refreshCheckHTTPStale returned -2
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientCacheHit: stale-while-revalidate needs revalidation
2009/12/08 18:34:24| The reply for GET [URL2] is ALLOWED, because it matched 'all'
2009/12/08 18:34:24| clientProcessBody: start fd=54 body_size=0 in.offset=420 cb=0x45602f req=0xdbeac0
2009/12/08 18:34:24| assertion failed: client_side.c:4445: "conn->body.size_left > 0"

On 08/12/2009, at 5:23 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> #2 0x0000000000435749 in xassert (msg=0x4c02f1 "conn->body.size_left > 0",
> file=0x4bd9d0 "client_side.c", line=4445) at debug.c:505
> No locals.
> #3 0x000000000042ece1 in clientProcessBody (conn=0xc270c8)
> at client_side.c:4445
> valid = 1
> size = 0
> buf = 0x81024f0 ""
> cbdata = (void *) 0x51703568
> callback = (CBCB *) 0x45602f <httpRequestBodyHandler>
> request = (request_t *) 0x1ed3c80
> #4 0x000000000042e853 in clientReadRequest (fd=37, data=0xc270c8)
> at client_side.c:4331
> conn = (ConnStateData *) 0xc270c8
> size = 422
> F = (fde *) 0x2a957a68b8
> len = 4095
> ret = 0
> #5 0x00000000004346ad in comm_call_handlers (fd=37, read_event=1,
> write_event=0) at comm_generic.c:264
> hdl = (PF *) 0x42e4e3 <clientReadRequest>
> hdl_data = (void *) 0xc270c8
> do_read = 1
> F = (fde *) 0x2a957a68b8
> do_incoming = 1
> #6 0x0000000000434f3e in do_comm_select (msec=579) at comm_epoll.c:195
> i = 0
> num = 1
> saved_errno = 11
> #7 0x0000000000434a55 in comm_select (msec=579) at comm_generic.c:390
> last_timeout = 1260237328.0927789
> rc = 0
> start = 1260237328.5134871
> #8 0x000000000046722c in main (argc=3, argv=0x7fbfffd798) at main.c:862
> errcount = 0
>
>
>
> On 08/12/2009, at 4:12 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
>> tis 2009-12-08 klockan 13:34 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>>
>>> Any thoughts here? Should this really be >=, or should clientProcessBody never get a 0 size_left?
>>
>> It's done when size_left == 0, and no further body processing handler
>> shoud be active on this request at that time. Any data on the connection
>> at this time is either surplus data (HTTP violation) or a pipelined
>> request waiting to be processed.
>>
>> If you look a little further down (about one screen) in
>> clientProcessBody you'll also see that the body reader gets unregistered
>> when processing reaches 0.
>>
>> But it would not be harmful to make clientProcessBody gracefully handle
>> size_left == 0 I guess.
>>
>> A backtrace would be nice.
>>
>> Regards
>> Henrik
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com