On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Helo, >> > >> > when handling a RewriteRule with the [P] flag, mod_rewrite always call >> > fully_qualify_uri() on the rewritten URL before returning. >> > >> > This does nothing if the URL is already absolute, otherwise this will >> > result >> > in : >> > >> > >> > ap_http_scheme(r)://ap_get_server_name_for_url(r):ap_get_server_port(r)/<non-full-URL> >> > >> > mod_proxy will then (likely) issue a request to itself (since the URL >> > above >> > is the one requested by the client, modulo path change, to reach httpd), >> > leading to an infinite (network, resources exhausting) loop. >> > >> > Wouldn't it be safer to return an error instead if the final URL is not >> > absolute? >> > >> >> I agree, it does seem silly, especially in that it happens explicitly >> in a proxy-only block of code. >> >> But it would not necessarily loop, presumably something has changed >> that might not be matchable the 2nd time through. > > > Yes of course, that's what I meant with "modulo path change", I should have > say "possibly leading to infinite loop"... > > Do you think it can be removed (safely)? > I don't see how an admin can rely on that, but I may be missing something. > That would quite simplify the patch about UDS with mod_rewrite (at least).
I guess it does permit you to change a working [R] rule to a [P] rule without changing the substitution. I think it would break people. On the bright side, we are not yet out of letters to use for Flags! -- Eric Covener [email protected]
