Closed Bug 438585 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Updates to Public Suffix List


(Core :: Networking, defect)

1.9.0 Branch
Not set





(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: gerv)




(Keywords: verified1.9.0.1)


(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

This bug covers the checkin of updates to the Public Suffix List submitted to by representatives of registries. Please contact me in case of any query.

Attached patch Patch A, v.1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Here's the first round of updates.

Attachment #326325 - Flags: review?(cbiesinger)
Nominating for blocking; this update includes at least one fix for broken websites (.mx records were wrong; anyone with an domain can't set domain-wide cookies).

Flags: wanted1.9.0.x?
Flags: blocking1.9.0.1?
Comment on attachment 326325 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch A, v.1

biesi is on vacation
bz is moving house
darin is not around
-> no netwerk peers.

shaver said he'd be happy with dwitte's review. Dan: can you oblige? It would be good to get this for 3.0.1 if at all possible.

Attachment #326325 - Flags: review?(cbiesinger) → review?(dwitte)
Comment on attachment 326325 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch A, v.1


since various people have had issues with utf8 patches/checkins in the past, please verify these appear properly after you land.


extra newlines?


same verification with these please.

> // nl :,728,122,,,,Home.html
>+// Confirmed by registry <> (with technical
>+// reservations) 2008-06-08

curious; what were these reservations?

>diff --git a/netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js b/netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js
>--- a/netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js
>+++ b/netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js
>@@ -21,16 +21,17 @@ function run_test()
>+    line = line.replace(/^\s+/, "");

why are there lines with leading whitespace? if there are, they should be fixed, but if you need this then fine.

r=dwitte, ecstatic to see so many registries participating in the list... nice work!
Attachment #326325 - Flags: review?(dwitte) → review+
Flags: wanted1.9.0.x?
Flags: wanted1.9.0.x+
Flags: blocking1.9.0.1?
Flags: blocking1.9.0.1-
Comment on attachment 326325 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch A, v.1

Attachment #326325 - Flags: approval1.9.0.1+
reed/gavin, please check in and watch the UTF as dwitte warns!
Keywords: checkin-needed
Attached patch what I landedSplinter Review
This is what I landed.

Checking in netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat;
/cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/dns/src/effective_tld_names.dat,v  <--  effective_tld_names.dat
new revision: 1.5; previous revision: 1.4
Checking in netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/test/unit/test_bug414122.js,v  <--  test_bug414122.js
new revision: 1.2; previous revision: 1.1
Attachment #326325 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Keywords: fixed1.9.0.1
Version: unspecified → 1.9.0 Branch
Thanks :-) I got up just in time to do this, but it's nice not to have to rush :-)

is this going to land on trunk too?
Yep, when I get around to it :-)

Quick question about these suffix updates: were these suffix's unsupported before this patch? Or were there other problems like the .mx cookie issue brought up in comment 2? 
It depends what you mean by "supported". It was never true that Firefox didn't support a suffix, as in "refused to visit the site". What it did before is explained by the old state of the file; what it does now is explained by the new state :-)

In most cases, beforehand the policy was too loose, and it's now been tightened up. 

In the .mx case, it's the reverse. Also in this category are .co, .sb and .th, although no harm has been reported in these cases.

Ah, I see. Thanks, Gerv! BTW, is there any way to verify that these changes have been applied?
Do you mean, is there any way of telling that the version of Firefox you are running has the changes?

Here's one way, although it's a bit flaky. 

* Set the preference browser.identity.ssl_domain_display to 1. 
* Visit

This is complicated by the fact that the site has some insecure content, and so the domain display disappears after a second or two, but if you briefly see "" then the patch hasn't been applied, and if you see "" then it has.

Awesome, thanks Gerv! This is verified fixed on based on testcase in comment 14.

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/2008070206 Firefox/3.0.1
Gerv checked in something from here (it's not clear what) today, then he backed it out when we were trying to figure out a test failure that started shortly after his checkin.

But his patch has now been cleared of culpability for the test failure and can land again when the tree reopens.
Pushed in 15880:c5a99dd3ae51.
Closed: 16 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9.1a1
Thank you, reed.

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.