Since you won't permit 2.6/3.0 to come into existence, we can presume this
was just a strawman?



On Feb 8, 2018 2:39 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:

> Another, much more extensive and intrusive fix would be to create
> each ind field dynamically and tuck away in the  proxy_worker_shared
> struct the SHM field to be attached to which holds the actual dynamically
> allocated string. Better on SHM usage (our current usage is sloppy
> regarding
> SHM utilization due to the fixed char arrays, most of which aren't
> full) but more complex in other ways.
>
> Idea would be to use the actual name and generate a hash from
> that, use the hash as the SHM filename, create the SHM using
> that filename (hash) to dynamically allocate the host string
> and then store in proxy_worker_shared the hash (filename) used.
> Attach to that SHM as needed.
>
> Cleanup would need some thought...
>
> > On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
> >
> > On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:46 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> In order to find the slot, we need to strcmp. 512 is arbitrary, does
> this
> >> become an 8192 byte identifier? Or do we insist people distill names to
> >> fit into a schema, much like DNS or file names, as the *identifier*?
> >
> > Right now the identifier is the URL prefix, and that URL prefix is
> imposed on our users externally - we can’t insist people do anything,
> because that anything will be “use a different server”.
> >
> > If the value is a hostname, then it needs to conform to RFC1035 (255
> chars + nul).
> >
> > If the value is an URL (such as the name of each balancer) then we need
> to be at least 255 chars for the hostname in the URL, plus space for the
> rest of the URL. We could dynamically do this by following LimitRequestLine
> but that might be tricky, and we recommend people don’t fiddle with
> LimitRequestLine anyway.
> >
> > My suggestion is we extend the struct with a name_ex (or name2) and a
> hostname_ex that have 8192 and 256 respectively. This is backportable, and
> won’t fail in any server with default LimitRequestLine.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Graham
> > —
> >
>
>

Reply via email to