GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 616922
Some kind of 302 redirect bug?
Last modified: 2010-04-28 07:00:06 UTC
From the Apache logs on bugzilla.gnome.org: 91.121.220.138 - - [25/Apr/2010:14:20:00 +0000] "HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ HTTP/1.1" 302 - "-" "gvfs/1.4.1" 91.121.220.138 - - [25/Apr/2010:14:20:01 +0000] "HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ HTTP/1.1" 302 - "-" "gvfs/1.4.1" 91.121.220.138 - - [25/Apr/2010:14:20:03 +0000] "HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ HTTP/1.1" 302 - "-" "gvfs/1.4.1" 91.121.220.138 - - [25/Apr/2010:14:20:04 +0000] "HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ HTTP/1.1" 302 - "-" "gvfs/1.4.1" What is strange is: 1. HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ instead of HEAD / 2. The continuous loading went on for a long time (hours), 7803 hits in total 3. I've blocked this user-agent, maybe a 403 response avoids the issue 4. It waited between each hit for 1 to 2 seconds This was 8 minutes after the user (IP address) browsed Bugzilla. User agent of that one: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-GB) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.10 I wonder if this is Bug-Buddy or something. User: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=gnome-bugs%40omeganet.no-ip.org
Hello, I have recently created an account with this bugzilla instance to add to some bugs with Brasero. I do not use automated page reloading etc as that would be redundant due to getting emails when changes occur. I don't really know about gvfs, so I haven't configured it personally. Would you have any suggestions for how to disable bug-buddy etc? uname -a: Linux 2.6.31-20-generic #58-Ubuntu SMP Fri Mar 12 05:23:09 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux GNOME version: 1:2.22.2~4ubuntu8
Sorry I can't be of much assistance... I'm a Linux n00b, finally escaped from Windows XP ~ 1 month ago (hurray!). I don't yet have iptables/netfilter progression, but I imagine this would be needed for me to prove that this machine is spamming your site. I'll be happy to help if would have any instructions to hand (etc).
(In reply to comment #0) > What is strange is: > 1. HEAD https://bugzilla.gnome.org/ instead of HEAD / this looks like bug 598277; when doing https over a proxy, libsoup used to mistakenly send the full URI to the server instead of just the path. Note that the HTTP spec says "all HTTP/1.1 servers MUST accept the absoluteURI form in requests". The vast majority of servers simply ignored libsoup's bug and returned the requested page as though we'd requested it correctly; bugzilla.gnome.org was the first one we found that behaved differently (returning a redirect to itself). I'm not sure when the bug was introduced, but it was fixed in libsoup 2.28.2.
From aptitude show for installed libsoup packages: libsoup-gnome2.4-1: Version: 2.28.1-2 libsoup2.4-1: Version: 2.28.1-2 In both cases Ubuntu maintains the packages.
so this is 598277. have you checked for updates? it seems likely that there should be a libsoup 2.28.2 package available. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 598277 ***
Ubuntu does its own regular update checks etc (I get the feeling its once a day). I have confirmed manually that my system is up to date at the moment. I understand (probably incorrectly) that Ubuntu freezes a load of software and then makes release, with any further updates tending to be security updates (I also subscribe to the backports repository so sometimes I get functionality updates for some programs etc). So at the moment I have a fully uptodate Karmic installation, which was originally released in October 2009. I have searched Lucid's packages and it appears v2.30.0-0ubuntu1 is available there. Ubuntu Lucid is currently in testing and will be released as stable on the 29th (my first upgrade, can't wait to see what breaks).
Also, thankyou for the ultraquick resolution of this :) Few days ago I make my first posts on a bugzilla system and then I get an email off a ticket I didn't create today saying I'm spamming GNOME! Thank god I didn't do something wrong.
Andy: Oh, sorry. It was purely an investigation into what kind of bug gvfs had. I only cc'ed you at the last minute so you could provide more information on what was going on. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong on your side. I knew from the logs already that it was some kind of bug in gvfs (or so I thought).
No problem Olav, made my day much more interesting :)