On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:41:15AM +0100, Edi Weitz wrote:
[not subscribed to tbnl-devel]
You should be... :)
All right; now I am.
I don't really like that idea. Instead, I now decided to send a 400 (Bad Request) reply to the client. Check out TBNL 0.9.5 and see if it works for you.
It fixes the problem I was seeing, but I've uncovered a new one.
However, this one's not really TBNL's fault. If you send a non-UTF8 urlencoded sequence _before_ the `?' in the request, TBNL dies the same as before, because headers are read from the bivalent stream with read-line (that is, in character mode) but Apache(*) de-url-encodes names before passing them on for the `script-filename' header. It can be fixed by either making kmrcl open the bivalent stream explicitly with :external-format :latin-1 or by running sbcl in a latin-1 locale.
In any case, I haven't hit any more socket leaks now that that one's been tracked down, so it looks like all's right in the world, at least as far as TBNL's concerned.
(*) now I'm using apache2 and mod_lisp2 version 1.3
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:41:11 -0700, "Robert J. Macomber" tbnl@rojoma.com wrote:
It fixes the problem I was seeing, but I've uncovered a new one.
However, this one's not really TBNL's fault. If you send a non-UTF8 urlencoded sequence _before_ the `?' in the request, TBNL dies the same as before, because headers are read from the bivalent stream with read-line (that is, in character mode) but Apache(*) de-url-encodes names before passing them on for the `script-filename' header.
Do you have an example for this? Seems I'm a bit dumb at the moment.
Thanks, Edi.
-
Edi Weitz -
Robert J. Macomber