Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue #9076 - Cleanups and fixes for multipart in Jetty 12 #9287

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
Feb 9, 2023

Conversation

lachlan-roberts
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #9076

  • Fix parsing bug in multipart (shared backing array for buffers from ServletMultiPartFormData#parse).
  • Add cleanup for temporary parts (save Parts in request attribute for delayed handler and cleanup).
  • Use MAX_FORM_KEYS_KEY and MAX_FORM_CONTENT_SIZE_KEY parameters to configure limits for multipart.
  • Allow all parts to be written to file, multiple writes will instead do a file move, and Part.delete() will delete any file storage for that part.
  • Can use newContentSource() method to get a new Content.Source every time from the part.
  • other fixes and cleanups

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
List<Content.Chunk> newChunks = content.stream()
.map(chunk -> Content.Chunk.from(chunk.getByteBuffer().slice(), chunk.isLast()))
.toList();
return new ChunksContentSource(newChunks);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Discussing this with @lorban, I think it's best if we store these ChunksContentSource in a List, and we fail them all when this part is closed.

The reason is that in this particular case, if a ChunksContentSource is read after completing the Handler callback, it can read content from buffers that were returned to the pool and may be used for other requests.
By failing them, we guarantee that if they are read after Handler completion, an error is returned.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What if someone calls newContentSource() after the part has been closed, do we need to keep an atomic state and if this has been closed return them a failed instance of Content.Source when they call newContentSource()?

Why can't we just say if this have been closed it is invalid to use it. Just like if you return a RetainableByteBuffer to the pool it is invalid to continue using it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

opened #9336

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@sbordet sbordet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix test failures, and then LGTM.

Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
@lachlan-roberts lachlan-roberts merged commit 3259a55 into jetty-12.0.x Feb 9, 2023
@lachlan-roberts lachlan-roberts deleted the jetty-12.0.x-multipartCleanups branch February 9, 2023 10:25
gregpoulos pushed a commit to gregpoulos/jetty.project that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2023
…x-documentation-operations-logging

* upstream/jetty-12.0.x: (35 commits)
  Fixes jetty#9326 - Rename DecryptedEndPoint to SslEndPoint.
  Jetty 10 Upgrade to Hazelcast 5 and totally disable auto join multicast etc.. (fix build on CI) (jetty#9331)
  jetty#9328 - changes from review
  jetty#9287 - catch error in ee9 maxRequestSize MultiPart test
  Jetty 12.0.x 9301 fix ee10 jstl jpms (jetty#9321)
  Issue jetty#9301 Fix dependencies for ee10-glassfish-jstl module (jetty#9303)
  Jetty 12 Hazelcast 5.x and disable auto detection/multicast" (jetty#9332)
  jetty#9287 - fix further test failures
  Fixed imports.
  Issue jetty#7650 - Fix race condition when stopping QueuedThreadPool (jetty#9325)
  jetty#9287 - remove unpaired release of Content.Chunk
  Issue jetty#8991 - rename websocket isDemanding() method to isAutoDemanding()
  Issue jetty#9287 - fix failing tests
  changes f rom review
  add todo to revert to normal pool after fix for jetty#9311
  Issue jetty#9309 - Introducing test for requestlog format with spaces
  use non-pooling RetainableByteBufferPool to work around performance bug
  consumeAvailable should use number of reads instead of bytes
  fix for retainable merge
  changes from review
  ...
lachlan-roberts added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2023
Signed-off-by: Lachlan Roberts <lachlan@webtide.com>
Comment on lines +598 to +599
if (_parser.isTerminated())
throw new RuntimeIOException("Parser is terminated");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@lachlan-roberts @sbordet I think this is causing #12212
Can you recall why this was necessary?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gregw this was added in d4682f4, with the commit description "Fix testMaxRequest size test in MultiPartServletTest".

I re-run those tests, and the changes #12213 pass those tests, so I think either was not necessary (maybe just a zealous sanity check), or it is not anymore.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants