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 > > — > > > >
