ID:               38915
 Comment by:       crescentfreshpot at yahoo dot com
 Reported By:      dimmoborgir at gmail dot com
 Status:           Open
 Bug Type:         Feature/Change Request
 Operating System: UNIX
 PHP Version:      5.2.2, 4.4.7
 New Comment:

Just to add to the dialog, Apache 1.x seems to have tried to address
the issue of leaked FDs itself.
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_1.3 says:

Changes with Apache 1.3.28

*) Certain 3rd party modules would bypass the Apache API and not
   invoke ap_cleanup_for_exec() before creating sub-processes.
   To such a child process, Apache's file descriptors (lock
   fd's, log files, sockets) were accessible, allowing them
   direct access to Apache log file etc.  Where the OS allows,
   we now add proactive close functions to prevent these file
   descriptors from leaking to the child processes.

As far as I understand the above, apache thinks it can know when
[mod_]php does a system-level popen() and cleanup the parent FDs before
exec(). Is that actually possible?


Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2007-11-29 20:33:42] odeta at hard dot lt

Any news? mail() function is suffering from the 
same problem, and exim is using Apache port then..

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2007-11-25 19:57:51] olafvdspek at gmail dot com

Can't you use FastCGI and avoid issues like these completely?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2007-10-07 09:33:33] Cruz at guerillamail dot com

Ran into the same problem.

I'm appalled that a bug this big isn't fixed more than a year after it
was reported.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2007-07-29 10:48:18] antoine dot bajolet at tdf dot fr

Hello,

I agree with all contributors :

It's a bunch of pain we can't launch a clean process from a PHP web
interface.

Without any technical consideration, functionally it's a real need to
numerous PHP users, and for a long time seeing those bug reports :
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=15529
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=15642
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=16548

The only workaround whe found to obtain the result is :
- Writing something to a file to tell "hey, there is a process to
launch or stop"
- Using a cron'ed script to read the file and launch/stop the process
if it tells it.

And this poor tip is far far from satisfying us.

The last response given in 2003 was
"Given the nature of PHP's execution architecture this is not
possible/practical to implement."

But if the Apache API offers a "apr_proc_create()" function, why not
using it in mod_php ? There are some other differences between mod_php
and php-cli.


Regards,
Antoine

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2007-03-05 21:11:51] oliver at realtsp dot com

apart from the security considerations mentioned above the fact that
mod_php doesn't free the FDs when forking prevents us from forking
cleanly.

ie we cannot from a web request to mod_php fork a cli process cleanly
because it will inherit all the open FDs (ie typically port 80 & 443)
even if you use setsid() (or daemon on FreeBSD) etc..

you can see this when you...
fork
stop apache
netstat -an | grep LISTEN

your cli process will be LISTENING to port 80 & 443. this is not only a
security risk, but it will prevent apache for restarting:

(48)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address
[::]:443
no listening sockets available, shutting down

I have not found any way to close these sockets as they should be
because the resource handles are not available in php. If you could at
least make these available then we could at least ensure we close them
manually.

Regards 

Oliver

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
    http://bugs.php.net/38915

-- 
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/?id=38915&edit=1

Reply via email to