Re: [libmicrohttpd] [EXTERNAL] Re: 0.9.71+ Connection Idle and Reuse Issue when Suspending and Resuming Connections

[Earp, Damon N. (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]]

Thank you for clarifying.

Damon Earp

---

From: Christian Grothoff
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 16:12
To: libmicrohttpd@gnu.org; Earp, Damon N. (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS INC]
Subject: Re: [libmicrohttpd] [EXTERNAL] Re: 0.9.71+ Connection Idle and Reuse Issue when Suspending and Resuming Connections

On 1/7/21 9:58 PM, Earp, Damon N. (GSFC-619.0)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND
APPLICATIONS INC] via libmicrohttpd wrote:
> Christian,
>
> I've tested your version and indeed I see the expected behavior. I believe the disconnect is my lack of knowledge of the flow requirements of the access handler.

Partially ;-).

> I was under the impression that in a non-100 continue requests queueing a response on the 2nd callback was fine, but I see from your changes I need to wait till the 3rd callback. 

It is fine to do so on the 2nd, but there are two exceptions:
1) if there is upload_data -- then you have to wait until the upload is
done -- but that's not the case in your scenario; or
2) if you suspend during the 1st call, then that 1st call doesn't
   count _because_ you suspended (so it never 'finished') ;-)

> Access handler flow from your updated main.c:
> Call 1. Increment the request access handler call count and return MHD_YES
> Call 2. Create the thread, suspend the request and return MHD_YES
> Call 3. queue the response return result
>
> It appears that I've been combining the first 2 calls incorrectly. I updated my main.c to do nothing on the first call, suspend and create thread on second call, and queue response on third and now am seeing the correct behavior.

>> The problem is that your logic queues a response during the *first*
>> callback to 'access_handler'
>
> Was that supposed to be *second* not *first*? I added extra logging and confirmed I am queuing on the second callback to the access_handler. As long as I moved the queuing of the response to the third call I saw proper reuse and idling of the connection.
>
> So to clarify:
>
> On all requests, regardless of method and existence of the Expect: 100 header, queuing a response on the first or second call to the access handler is "early" and leads to a forced closing of the connection. Therefore on all non-"Expect: 100" requests, making the first call to the access handler a NOOP is a simple way to avoid queueing a response too early.

What is important is that you return MHD_YES once _without_ also
suspending.  So if you didn't do that thread-activity, you could queue
the response on the 2nd call already.

> Thanks again for your time and help.

Sure. As I said, we know this part of the API can be a bit confusing and
needs improving ;-).

Happy hacking!

Christian