On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > Just for fun, what is the functional difference, if any, between this > very large patch, that adds lots of code, and this extremely simple > diff which, from what I can tell, handles the exact defined > "problem" with the original code???
This oneliner is what I proposed to Mark in the PR to unblock his situation (IPC-SysV leaks on main process crash)... But unless one configures a different ServerName (or ServerAdmin??) for each vhost, multiple servers may have the same ID. AFAICT, this is neither a requirement nor an enforcement in httpd, and there may even be multiple vhost configured on different ports with the same ServerName (legitimately). If this happens, mod_proxy_lb will possibly reuse slotmems with incompatible sizes (two vhosts with the same ID but for example a different number of balancer members), which is controlled by mod_slotmem but leads to the previous SHM to be overwritten (i.e. all bets are off). We *really* need an unique ID for mod_proxy_lb to work correctly. > > Just curious if our current policy is to use a sledgehammer now > to fix what can be handled with a pair of tweezers. You just ignored anything related the ID (hence the issue) so far, at least there is a proposal this time. Please go ahead with a simpler fix if the sledgehammer hurts you. > On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: >> <mod_proxy_lb.diff> This patch was bogus, I have fixed it but I'd better wait for yours now. Regards, Yann.
