[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: ra_serf crashes on Windows with AVG 2012 Surf-Shield

From: Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 02:15:43 +0200


On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Philip Martin
> > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can detect
> >>> exploit sites and other complex online threats". There is some more
> >>> explanation on the AVG website, but it's still pretty vague [2]. Maybe
> >>> it does some throttling of requests/responses, inspecting things or
> >>> so, ... but whatever it does, svn+serf should probably not crash or
> >>> hang.
> >>
> >> You could compare the apache logs with/without Surf-Shield.
> >> You could
> >> capture the traffic with/without Surf-Shield and compare.
> Ok, I picked the first failing test, authz_tests.py#4, and executed
> that with and without Surf-Shield. Please find in attachment two zip
> files of those two runs, containing Apache logs and a wire capture, as
> well as the crash dump file.
> I don't see a difference in the Apache logs (they are identical,
> except that the crashing one stops earlier). The wire capture ... I'm
> not sure. The one from the crash is obviously smaller. But when I
> "follow TCP stream" they both seem identical (same number of bytes and
> all), and when I then filter out the followed stream, nothing remains.
> So I'm not sure where the difference is ...
> I'm hoping someone can take it from here. I'm not familiar with this
> part of the code. Maybe the best place to start digging is the crash
> dump (and/or a more thorough analysis of both wire captures). If I
> hear nothing in the next couple of days, I'll put this into the issue
> tracker so it isn't forgotten.
The dump & logs don't show the issue, only debugging helps in this case.

The problem is in ra_serf/util.c svn_ra_serf__handle_xml_parser:

  if (sl.code == 404 && ctx->ignore_errors == FALSE)

      err = svn_ra_serf__handle_server_error(request, response, pool);

        svn_ra_serf__handle_discard_body(request, response, NULL, pool),

When the response status of a PROPFIND request is 404, you see that the
response body is discarded with calls to svn_ra_serf__handle_server_error
and svn_ra_serf__handle_server_error.

In your particular scenario, the status line of the response is already
received, but the body is not. Reading from the response buckets returns
EAGAIN status.
Problem: the add_done_item(ctx) line ensures that the request is considered
as handled, while the response body is still waiting on the socket to be
read. ra_serf will only run the serf loop again with the next request. If
the connection is not closed directly, which here it isn't, the next
request will have a response that doesn't match.

The fix is to ensure that the request is only marked as handled when a. the
response body has been discarded completely or a b. read error was
encountered resulting in serf setting up a new connection. I don't have a
tested solution, as my Windows vm was so nice to reboot to install some
updates while I was in the middle of a debug session, and I don't have time
now to start over.


Received on 2012-05-08 02:16:38 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.