Re: BalancerMember and RFC1035 compliance - BalancerMember worker hostname (65-character.long.DNS.name.com) too long

[Jim Jagielski]

No.

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 2:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
>> 
>> On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> 
>> So long as other mod_proxy_* compiled against 2.4.29 do not crash, then no
>> - it is doesn't seem we established an ABI contract. The pairing of
>> httpd-2.4.30
>> and the 2.4.30 mod_proxy_balancer are obviously in-sync.
>> 
>> 
>> Digging through the code, the struct proxy_worker_shared is used by the
>> ap_proxy_share_worker() and ap_proxy_find_workershm() both declared in
>> proxy_util.c and therefore mod_proxy.so.
>> 
>> The only user of these two functions is mod_proxy_balancer - so this looks
>> safe as per your definition above.
>> 
>> We need to document whether the name, scheme and hostname fields in
>> proxy_worker_shared are intended for debugging purposes only (ie logging,
>> status, errors) and are therefore safe to truncate or whether they can be
>> used programmatically. I don’t see anything in mod_proxy_balancer that
>> references these fields.
>> 
>> IIRC, it's just for mod_status output. Nothing programmatic.
> 
> As an external representation - if mod_status is compiled against 2.4.29,
> will it crash with this backport?