Re: [pcp] pcp QA status

[Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/23/2016 01:56 AM, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > 651 ditto
> > The only clue I have here so far is that 651 only fails for me with a non-
> > secure-sockets enabled build.  Still investigating though.
> Somehow, this is fallout from commit 1b74b0f5e2bc - pmproxy connections working
> fine for secure sockets but failing for builds with regular sockets.  Can I get
> you to dig deeper please Dave?  You'll spot it much quicker than I will, and I
> guess the multiple connection attempts confuse pmproxy somehow.  Noticed in the
> pmproxy.log there's plenty of "Bad version string" messages (i.e. no data ended
> up sent on a connection), which might be another clue.
I'm not getting this failure with pcp built either way (--with or 
--without-secure sockets).
The "Bad version sting" messages are expected. If n connections are 
attempted then n-1 of them will be abandoned and there should be n-1 
such messages. It was one of the concerns that was raised when this 
implementation was suggested.
AFAIK, pmproxy uses the same code as pmcd to connect. Also, all of the 
connection-level code is done using native APIs. NSS/NSPR does not get 
involved until the decision to upgrade the connection is made.
Dave