Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 03:41:51PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > > > > Somebody remind me why that ap_status_drops_conn call was added in the > > first place? It was a recent change, and seemed important at the time. > > Woah, woah, woah. Please revert. > > If the status results in a dropped connection, we can't read the > body because that status code means we don't trust the input. This > also means that the r->status code can not be the recursive code (which > doesn't result in a dropped connection), but must remain the error > that we just got in ap_die, so that we know that we're not supposed > to read the body. This is central to our 413 fixes.
We cannot tolerate infinite recursion if an ErrorDocument gets an error. The if statement I changed is how we detect this sort of recursive error. Please take a look at the backtrace I posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED], under the subject "2.0.38-39 lockup problem ?". If we need to prevent reading the body for certain types of errors, we can't do it at the expense of loosing our recursive error protection. Greg
