rack-devel archive mirror (unofficial) https://groups.google.com/group/rack-devel
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Hongli Lai <honglilai@gmail.com>
To: rack-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Close body object after socket hijacking or not?
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:26:58 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6816caae-e47e-4e9d-9897-70c2069200a0@googlegroups.com> (raw)


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]

Some users are experiencing problems with Rack::Lock and socket hijacking 
in combination with some servers, such as Phusion Passenger. They've 
noticed that when Rack::Lock is used in a request that hijacks the socket, 
the next request fails with "deadlock; recursive locking" inside Rack::Lock.

I've posted the results of my investigation 
here: https://github.com/ngauthier/tubesock/issues/10#issuecomment-72539461. 
But the bottom line is that different servers handle the response body 
object differently in the face of socket hijacking.

So I'd like to have clarification on the following question: are servers 
supposed to call #close on the body object or not, after the request as 
been hijacked? The way the specification is currently written is ambiguous. 
It seems to imply that servers must only call #close on the body object if 
the request was partially hijacked, but not when the request was fully 
hijacked.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rack Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rack-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1455 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2015-02-02 21:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-02 21:26 Hongli Lai [this message]
2015-04-17 20:43 ` Eric Wong
2015-05-29 14:09   ` Hongli Lai
2015-06-04  2:11     ` Eric Wong
2015-06-04  6:53       ` Hongli Lai
2015-06-04 12:38         ` Marc-André Cournoyer
2015-06-28 20:46           ` James Tucker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://groups.google.com/group/rack-devel

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6816caae-e47e-4e9d-9897-70c2069200a0@googlegroups.com \
    --to=rack-devel@googlegroups.com \
    --subject='Re: Close body object after socket hijacking or not?' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/rack.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).