Can you please reverse the order of your ProxyPassReverse directives in the 
test (such that the one with the port comes first in the configuration).

Regards

Rüdiger

Von: Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 12:19
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: AW: ap_proxy_location_reverse_map()

What location would you expect? I agree that the result you see is not correct.

BTW: ProxyPassReverse does not change anything to your balancer setup.

Regards

Rüdiger

Von: Thomas Eckert [mailto:thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 11:54
An: dev@httpd.apache.org<mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: ap_proxy_location_reverse_map()

Thanks but you ignored the config extract I mentioned.
> ProxyPassReverse / https://mybackend.local
> ProxyPassReverse / https://mybackend.local:443

does this not translate to

  <Proxyy balancer://abcd>
    BalancerMember https://mybackend.local status=-SE
    BalancerMember https://mybackend.local:443 status=-SE
  </Proxy>

? I'm not even sure whether this is correct in terms of configuration - the 
docs speak of 'url' as argument to BalancerMember so I guess giving the port is 
ok. However, when accessing /path this does not do anything different then 
without adding the ':443' line.

The original problem was that Location headers like

  Location: 
https://mybackend.local:443/path/file?query<https://myserver:443/path/file?query>

are being rewritten to

  Location: https://myfrontend.local/:443/path/file?query

which is nonsense. Based on your example I replaced the usage of the balancer 
argument with
  ProxyPass /path https://mybackend.local
  ProxyPassReverse /path https://mybackend.local
  ProxyPassReverse /path https://mybackend.local:443

and it will rewrite the above mentioned Location header to

  https://myfrontend.local/path:443/path/file?query
which is just as wrong.
Did I misunderstand you somewhere ?

<https://mybackend.local:443>

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group 
<ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com<mailto:ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>> wrote:
  ProxyPass / http://backend:8080/
  ProxyPassReverse / http://backend:8080/

There the port matters.

Fix for your issue:

  ProxyPassReverse / https://mybackend.local
  ProxyPassReverse / https://mybackend.local:443

Regards

Rüdiger

Von: Thomas Eckert 
[mailto:thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com<mailto:thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. November 2013 11:20
An: dev@httpd.apache.org<mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: ap_proxy_location_reverse_map()

Given a config extract like

<Proxyy balancer://abcd>
  BalancerMember https://mybackend.local status=-SE
</Proxy>
...
<Location />
  ProxyPass balancer://abcd/
  ProxyPassReverse balancer://abcd/
</Location>
what exactly is your suggestion ? Also, can you give an example for a situation 
where the port matters ?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group 
<ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com<mailto:ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>> wrote:
IMHO this should be fixed in the configuration with an additional mapping that 
has the port in. In many cases the port matters.

Regards

Rüdiger

From: Thomas Eckert 
[mailto:thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com<mailto:thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Dienstag, 26. November 2013 17:11
To: dev@httpd.apache.org<mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
Subject: ap_proxy_location_reverse_map()

I've been debugging some problems with incorrectly reverse mapped Location 
headers and found some backend servers (e.g. OWA for Exchange 2013) to give 
headers like

  Location: https://myserver:443/path/file?query
which I think are perfectly fine. mod proxy fails to do the trick because

        else {
            const char *part = url;
            l2 = strlen(real);
            if (real[0] == '/') {
                part = ap_strstr_c(url, "://");
                if (part) {
                    part = ap_strchr_c(part+3, '/');
                    if (part) {
                        l1 = strlen(part);
                    }
                    else {
                        part = url;
                    }
                }
                else {
                    part = url;
                }
            }
>          if (l1 >= l2 && strncasecmp(real, part, l2) == 0) {
                u = apr_pstrcat(r->pool, ent[i].fake, &part[l2], NULL);
                return ap_is_url(u) ? u : ap_construct_url(r->pool, u, r);
            }
        }
which does not take the port behind the domain name into consideration (note: 
simple example setup, fake path is just '/' obviously). I looked over the code 
and got the feeling the same problem applies to the whole section, not just 
that one strncasecmp() call. Since the port given by the backend server is not 
much use to the reverse proxy at that point, we can just drop it on the floor 
and continue, e.g. like this

--- a/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
+++ b/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
@@ -894,11 +894,17 @@ PROXY_DECLARE(const char *) 
ap_proxy_location_reverse_map(request_rec *r,
                     }
                 }
                 else if (l1 >= l2 && strncasecmp((*worker)->s->name, url, l2) 
== 0) {
+                    const char* tmp_pchar = url + l2;
+                    if (url[l2] == ':') {
+                        tmp_pchar = ap_strchr_c(tmp_pchar, '/');
+                    }
+
                     /* edge case where fake is just "/"... avoid double slash 
*/
-                    if ((ent[i].fake[0] == '/') && (ent[i].fake[1] == 0) && 
(url[l2] == '/')) {
-                        u = apr_pstrdup(r->pool, &url[l2]);
+                    if ((ent[i].fake[0] == '/') && (ent[i].fake[1] == 0) &&
+                        (tmp_pchar != NULL) && (tmp_pchar[0] == '/')) {
+                        u = apr_pstrdup(r->pool, tmp_pchar);
                     } else {
-                        u = apr_pstrcat(r->pool, ent[i].fake, &url[l2], NULL);
+                        u = apr_pstrcat(r->pool, ent[i].fake, tmp_pchar + 1, 
NULL);
                     }
                     return ap_is_url(u) ? u : ap_construct_url(r->pool, u, r);
 As said above this most likely needs to be spread to the other cases in that 
section as well. Anyone see problems with this ?


Reply via email to