I am very confused, examined apr 1.6 threadproc deltas, now looking at the
mpm, but reporter isolated to apr. Next place I plan to look is is the
fileio abstraction.

I am beginning to suspect this is 'that customer'... In my experience, the
one who duct tapes and binds in entirely unrelated shared libs on Windows
and hopes they will work. If they are passing around apr_os_ objects, they
simply won't when the C Runtime flavors differ.

But, that isn't the entire problem, an executed external process should be
independent of the parent process Runtime. Unless a wrong msvcrt.dll is
wedged in the PATH.

Steffen this one sounds like something your user community could refute or
confirm, and help narrow.


On Jul 8, 2017 3:00 AM, "Steffen" <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote:

> Received more details:
>
> Our client/server system needs encrypting to client.
> Almost files are statically encrypt, but some xml need to
> modify by SSI then encrypt. So I made encrypting file
> filter by exe (not Apache module). Its name is encect.exe
> (x86) and it is using msvcrt.dll. Because encect.exe works
> all Apache HTTP Server (x86/x64) which is enabled built-in
> mod_ext_filter module.
>
> (Details)
>
> Some directory uses SYMLINKDed directory. Apache HTTP
> Server too. Enabed symlink by .htaccess file in parent of
> symlink.
>
>    Options +FollowSymLinks
>
> The modification & encrypt SSI template xml file are in
> the above symlinked directory.
>
> Apache HTTP Server's httpd.conf defines like follow.
>
> ExtFilterDefine ENCECT mode=output cmd=modules/encect.exe
> Alias /WebRoot/ "/Path/To/WebRoot/"
> <Directory "/Path/To/AppRoot/">
>      Options Indexes MultiViews IncludesNOEXEC
>      AddOutputFilter INCLUDES m3s inc ini
>      AddOutputFilter INCLUDES;ENCECT xmlpp
>      AllowOverride All
>      Require all granted
> </Directory>
>
> The xmlpp file size is 3,295 bytes. written in Shift_JIS.
> Used SSI tag is three <!--#echo var="SERVER_NAME"--> like
> follow.
>
>    <servletURL url="http://<!--#echo var="SERVER_NAME"-->/...
>
> Client access to xmlpp file, the encect.exe process is
> remains in service. I'm memory dump encect.exe and load to
> WinDbg. Call stack is ReadFile(), it means encect.exe
> waiting stdin, but Apache does not send any. Kill the
> encect.exe, client receives body from first SSIed parsed
> text. (Loose until first SSI tag.)
>
> I tested INCLUDE;ENCECT to..
> (A) INCLUDES only, client receives plain complete SSI
> parsed xmlpp file. OK.
> (B) ENCECT only, client receives responce header without
> body. NG. This must encrypt xmlpp file.
>
> Next, I tested mod_ext_filter.so to 2.4.25, but still NG.
>
> Next, I read Apache HTTP Server Change log, I found
> mod_filter changes. I tested mod_filter.so and
> mod_ext_filter.so to 2.4.25, NG.
>
> Next, I tested httpd.exe to 2.4.25, NG.
>
> Next, I read Apache Lounge's used modules, I found APR is
> upgraded to 1.6.2 from 1.5.x. So I tested libapr-1.dll,
> libaprutil-1.dll to 2.4.25, OK! Works like 2.4.25 and
> earlier version of Apache HTTP Server.
>
>
>
> On Friday 07/07/2017 at 20:13, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> 2.4.26/27 doesn't *require* APR/APU 1.6.x, but there are
> some features that depend on it. If it's a bug in apr 1.6.x,
> then it's not a httpd bug specifically... imo at least.
>
> any further detail on how the below is actually borken??
> What happens?
>
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 7:41 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>
>
> I got the following report. Is this known ?
>
>
> Because apache http server all of 2.4.26 (vc11,vc14,vc15)
> was not work ExtFilterDefine & OutputFilter. Its bug
> exists in apr 1.6. I thought it need to inform.
>
> Apache 2.4.26 changes apr 1.6, but it broke
> ExtFilterDefine & OutputFilter.
> (test) copy apache 2.4.25's libapr-1 & libaprutil to
> apache 2.4.26, they worked correctly like before apaches.
>
>
> Yes, we need the actual error messages.
>
> I'm about ready to T&R apr 1.6.1 / apu 1.6.3 for the various fixes already
> present, but if we can fix something specific that we are unaware of...
>
>
>

Reply via email to