Comment by kflansburg
15 hours ago
At no point do we claim that it is a bug with the model. We specifically outline how it was a mis-configuration on Cloudflare's part and a bug in SGLang. We name the model in the title because our customers need to know which of our endpoints was affected. In fact, we say "the GLM-5.3 Workers AI model", not "GLM-5.3".
Not buying that. You explicitly mention the model name in the title the 'GLM 5.3 workers AI model' suggests it is something specific to GLM 5.3 which it is not. You mention Sglang and are all surprised that it didn't throw an error. But the issue was yours all along.
Yeah, their title is absolutely implying a GLM bug to anyone who doesn't read it super closely.
There's a huge amount of unnecessary extraneous details in the headline that distract from "this is a Cloudflare bug".
Not sure if the title was edited but as is it is very clear to me this is a bug on their side and I have no idea how a technically literate person (someone using the model via cloudflare?) who would misinterpret given the reference to the cache.
1 reply →
I have read this post, and it appears that this is indeed an issue specific to the GLM 5.3 model on their platform. I am unsure whether this is because only GLM 5.3 uses SGLang or because only its configuration is problematic.
Did we read different articles? None of the issues they brought up (architecture splitting, memory transport, Cloudflare's misconfigured context window provisioning, the SGLang state leak, lack of client error provisioning) are model related. These all exist at the layer of the harness (ie Cloudflare's configuration).
A better title would be "Cross-request KV cache exposure in Cloudflare provisioned GLM-5.3 Workers AI model" because it narrows culpability. Just posting it on the Cloudflare blog isn't enough for that in the age of AI and SEO data-scrapes and it'd be surprising to me if the authors didn't know that.
They could have removed GLM 5.3 from the title, and the title and the body would still make perfect sense.
1 reply →
Changing "model" to "endpoint" might help since it's the endpoint, not the model
I was surprised in reading the article that it had nothing to do with the contents of the model. It could have been any model capable of 1M context that triggered this bug/misconfig on Cloudflare/SGLangs side. The title is extremely misleading.
What's the point of even mentioning GLM-5.3? That's a detail that only belongs in the body.
Did you ever given any thought about how confusing the title may be?
Did AI write this title and you just use it without ever wondering if it makes sense at all?
> We name the model in the title because our customers need to know which of our endpoints was affected
Then you would used "endpoint" instead of "model". In fact, there's actually zero reasons to put any model or endpoint in the title if the bug is yours alone.
"Cross-request KV cache exposure in X model".
Which part of that is not claiming the exposure is in X model? Cloudflare is stopping to be cool, this is the start. I guess, cf is now big enough for enshitification to start.
You should change the title.
Most people will read this headline and assume Cloudflare is intentionally trying to squash open-weight models. Given how superfluous the model is to the content, it's easy to believe that narrative.
If that wasn't your intent, you really ought to change the title ASAP. Time is ticking before tech journalists and social media decide to run with that narrative and make your public relations department sad.
Then remove GLM-5.3 from the title.
Not what I am seeing. not sure if there is A/B testing here.
Their AI won’t let them