On Thursday 03 January 2002 05:16 am, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 05:15:34PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > This patch breaks the proxy. Specifically, anyone who uses > ap_proxy_make_fake_req(). Get > > > > a seg fault in ap_get_limit_req_body because r->per_dir_config is NULL. I'll >spend > some > > > > time on this tomorrow unless someone wants to jump on it tonight. > > > > > > Is it valid for r->per_dir_config to be null? Hmm. I wonder if > > > ap_get_limit_req_body should be fixed to handle this case instead > > > of ap_http_filter? -- justin > > > > No. It's entirely invalid. > > > > At the very least - you are looking the r->server->lookup_defaults, plus the > > <Location > sections in per_dir_config. > > > > That's always true, anything that changes that assumption is broken. Now if > > either proxy or your patch skips the initial <Location > lookup (or it is > > otherwise circumvented) then you get what you pay for. > > It's not that clear to me what the right solution should be. Checkout > ap_proxy_http_process_response(). This function reads the -response- from the proxied > server and dummies up a request_rec to do so. So is this a valid approach or not? If >it > is, then we do not need to do location/directory walks (and it is fine if > r->per_dir_config is NULL.
We must be able to dummy up request_rec structures in order to use filters that aren't attached to a request. I believe that r->per_dir_config should be allowed to be NULL. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
