William McKee wrote:
[...]
OK, I was up all night last night and am stopping here for the night.
I'll rebuild mod_perl tomorrow and try again. I don't suspect this will
make any difference since these messages started coming up when I was
running 5.8.2. It's worth a try though.
OK, please let us
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 04:21, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Quoting Mark Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FYI, I'll only speak for APR/Apache 2.0. 1.3 has a somewhat different
implementation.
Check out this further pool test,
[...]
apr_pool_create_ex(subp1, p, fun, NULL);
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2004/03/10 13:54:17
Modified:modules/ssl ssl_engine_log.c
Log:
* modules/ssl/ssl_engine_log.c (ssl_log_annotate, ssl_log_annotation,
ssl_log_ssl_error): const-ify annotation strings and simplify
ssl_log_annotation.
-static char
Greetings,
A DoS vulnerability has been reported in mod_ssl in apache 2 (see
http://secunia.com/advisories/11092/).
Can anyone comment whether this vulnerability is present in mod_ssl in
apache 1.3 or is it simply that mod_ssl, prior to apache 2, is not the
responsibility of ASF?
Rgds,
Owen
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:17:03PM +0100, Boyle Owen wrote:
A DoS vulnerability has been reported in mod_ssl in apache 2 (see
http://secunia.com/advisories/11092/).
Can anyone comment whether this vulnerability is present in mod_ssl in
apache 1.3
There has already been a couple of responses
That definitely sounds useful. I think you can get the same effect,
though, by using the existing 2.0/2.1 mod_include hook to add new
directives... something like this:
!--#set_random var=blah min=$min max=$max --
That's not quite as syntactically elegant, but it has the advantage
of not
c is smaller than c++ STL,
Using apache 2.0.48
I defined my own string struct
and my own 'mystrcat' function
and tenbyte_string as 0123456789
which is ten bytes.
Did this iteration 30,000 times as shown
below. It ran fast and small.
It built a string with a strlen() of 300,000
The child never
On Mar 12, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Patrick Welche wrote:
.. and if we are talking wish-list, I have often wanted to do something
like
!--#set var=dir value=/long/and/complicated/directory/path/name/
--
!--#include file=!--#echo var=dir --filename --
How about !--#include virtual=$dir/filename.html --
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Brian Pane wrote:
That definitely sounds useful. I think you can get the same effect,
though, by using the existing 2.0/2.1 mod_include hook to add new
directives... something like this:
!--#set_random var=blah min=$min max=$max --
That's not quite as
Memory allocation varies widely with the platform and runtime
libraries. It's said that the new[] operator is preferred over malloc
because it lets the OS handle memory management where it belongs. The
concept being (I gather) that an implementation of malloc doesn't
necessarily understand
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:53:20PM -0500, Mike Friedman wrote:
On Mar 12, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Patrick Welche wrote:
.. and if we are talking wish-list, I have often wanted to do something
like
!--#set var=dir value=/long/and/complicated/directory/path/name/
--
!--#include file=!--#echo
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:02:03PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
There are 2.0.49-rc1 tarballs available for testing at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please report your results to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks in advance,
Sander
Fails in BSD/OS 5.1
sh-2.02# make install
The Doctor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 06:02:03PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
There are 2.0.49-rc1 tarballs available for testing at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please report your results to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks in advance,
Sander
Fails in BSD/OS 5.1
sh-2.02# apace
13 matches
Mail list logo
