On 25.07.2006 13:22, Joe Orton wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 10:58:39PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>I don't know. Ask Joe :-) > > > "A config directive is the last resort of the indecisive"... but I guess > it's going to have to happen in this case. It would be similar in > spirit to LimitXMLRequestBody which is some kind of bound on in-RAM > buffering. > > Buffering request bodies to disk is certainly *not* something which > should be generalised and encouraged IMO. It's a DoS attack waiting to > happen in the proxy, and it would be a DoS attack waiting to happen in > mod_ssl. Why should you assume that disk is an unlimited resource when > RAM isn't? How do you know the chosen /tmp isn't RAM-backed tmpfs? etc I don't assume that it is unlimited and of course there should be also an upper limit for this disk file. As you may have seen I discussed with Bill about a more generic aproach for setasides / ap_save_brigade. I think it makes sense to have an upper limit for memory buffering and an upper limit for disk buffering. Whether these settings can be different for different areas like mod_ssl, mod_proxy, etc is another story. I totally agree that having no limit imposes a high DoS risk and even if we have a limit this is usually for a *single* request. So it might make sense to have an upper limit for the whole server. Just some thoughts. Regards Rüdiger
