> However, looking at your patch, having to lock the mutex for > ap_proxy_get_worker() looks wrong. I think it should be passed r->pool > instead of conf->pool.
I checked how ap_proxy_get_worker() is used in other places and also what is done with the pool inside and you are right. It really shouldn't be in a persistent pool. Corrected patch is attached. > Hmm. I thought there was some introductory documentation, but I didn't > find much. There is a short note at the end of > http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.4/apr__pools_8h.html . Basically, only > the functions in http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/1.4/group__apr__pools.html > that are explicitly marked as thread safe may safely operate on a pool > from different threads without locking. Which is basically saying "only the create-sub-pool functions" ;-)
fix_mod_proxy_thread_unsafety.patch
Description: Binary data
