In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
r> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ralf S. Engelschall
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
RE>> Hello mod_ssl hackers,
RE>> I've prepared the new mod_ssl distribution layout (actually I wrote new
RE>> programs which generate it for me ;_), incorporated all latest cleanups and
RE>> patches and I'm now updating the documentation for 2.1b9/2.1.0. In the
RE>> meantime I would appreciate when you can (re-)test the code and watch the code
RE>> through your expert eyes to make sure that it's still stable and working as
RE>> expected (because of the cleanups I had to re-adjust a lot of code again).
r> Still my patches applied almost without rejects :-)
RE>> PS: Especially under Win32 I hope all works now fine (again). I've included the
RE>> init round patch and also tried to update the configure.bat file the same
RE>> way the Unix configure script was overhauled. Trung, I hope you again find
RE>> the bugs on this platform for us.
RE>> Please try to test both the DSO and non-DSO situations when it's possible for
RE>> you (i.e. Apache supports DSO on your platform).
r> DSO version works here.
Oops. Wrong version was attached :-(( Just two lines in mod_so.c and mod_ssl is
not working at all :-((
P.S. Still my solution looks like un ugly hack -- may be there are exist
better solution for problem... Anyway your solution is even more vulnerable
since (as I'm understood it) it heavily depends on standard behaviour for
loader: after unload and reload all modules will be pushed back at the same
address. I'm not sure if it's the case for all systems where DSO are supported...
EAPI-2-EAPIk-4-2.1b9-SNAP.patch.bz2
