DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37100>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37100 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-10-19 23:34 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Created an attachment (id=16722) --> (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16722&action=view) [edit] [edit] > > Patch against trunk > > I tried this one, and it's buggy. You need to have a line like: > conn->data = NULL; > somewhere around the brigade cleanups, or after a couple of requests you'll > SEGV because conn->data->buffer isn't valid anymore. Sorry, but you are confusing me. I guess you mean ((ajp_msg_t *)conn->data)->buf instead of conn->data->buffer. ((ajp_msg_t *)conn->data)->buf gets allocated out of the request pool. This pool and thus the buffer remain valid for the livetime of the request. In line 212 conn->data is set to NULL. As we only use ((ajp_msg_t *)conn->data)->buf during the lifetime of the request it does not get invalid. If we would set conn->data to NULL after the brigade cleanup in line 326 we would reintroduce the memory leak as we would allocate more memory out of the request pool which gets only cleared after the request has been finished. So if you still see core dumps could you please provide a gdb backtrace for further investigation? > > I haven't tried the poll-timeout, but would tend to agree with Paul on it's > usefulness. Currently mod_jk doesn't flush on output (of course, it thinks > it's still httpd-1.3 and calls ap_rwrite, so maybe not the best example :). I admit it is a bandaid until we have an improved protocol. The questions are - Can we live with this bandaid - When do we get the protocol update > > The closest thing to the AJP/1.4 proposal would be: > http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/common/ajpv13ext.html Thanks for the link. > Of course, no Tomcat version currently supports it. It wouldn't be that hard > to add a CMD_AJP13_FLUSH to Tomcat (with a Tomcat configuration option to > turn > it off so it doesn't freak-out mod_jk :). But as Will says, that discussion > belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Yes, this belongs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you willing to introduce this discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be very nice. On the other hand from my personal point of view I do not think that it is a good idea to extend the Tomcat connectors in this way without having this in a spec of an AJP protocol whatever version it has. This would subvert the AJP spec. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
