On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h (original)
>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h Wed Apr 11 19:11:52 2018
>>> @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ typedef struct {
>>>      char      secret[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SECRET_SIZE]; /* authentication 
>>> secret (e.g. AJP13) */
>>>      char      upgrade[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SCHEME_SIZE];/* upgrade protocol 
>>> used by mod_proxy_wstunnel */
>>>      char      hostname_ex[PROXY_RFC1035_HOSTNAME_SIZE];  /* RFC1035 
>>> compliant version of the remote backend address */
>>> +    apr_size_t   response_field_size; /* Size of proxy response buffer in 
>>> bytes. */
>>> +    unsigned int response_field_size_set:1;
>>>  } proxy_worker_shared;
>>
>>
>> If this is for trunk only, should I move the bit field up and call it
>> major?  I don't plan to backport it.
>
> Maybe the backport is needed to resolve PR 62196 altogether?

Scratch that, this commit doesn't fix the case where '\n' is within
the ENOSPC brigade but only comments on the issue.

Reply via email to