https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #35 from Yann Ylavic ---
If you downloaded the script already, please redo because there was a bug in
dump_pool_and_children which I just fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #34 from Yann Ylavic ---
OK, how strange :/
Please copy this gdb init file
(https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/.gdbinit?view=co) to your
$HOME directory (i.e. "/root" if you run gdb as root), such that gdb loads
httpd
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #33 from Michael Haas ---
Created attachment 37277
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37277=edit
gdb eor_bucket_destroy
no breakpoint after first backtrace
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #32 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #31)
> And once in eor_bucket_destroy is reached (if ever), please do:
> (gdb) backtrace
> and then "next" until the end of the function
In eor_bucket_destroy there is
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #31 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Michael Haas from comment #30)
> made the trace, hopefully i got the commands in the proper order.
Yes, thanks a lot. You just missed to "step" in the second call to:
return
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #30 from Michael Haas ---
Created attachment 37274
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37274=edit
gdb trace
made the trace, hopefully i got the commands in the proper order.
I also can't recreate the problem
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #29 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Yann Ylavic from comment #28)
>
> Once the ap_process_request_after_handler breakpoint is hit, please "step"
> in the ap_pass_brigade call there,
Actually, once in
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #28 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to Michael Haas from comment #21)
> => 2.4.43
> [...]
> Breakpoint 2, apr_file_mktemp (fp=0x7fffaa783828, template=0x7fffa40363e0
> "/tmp/modproxy.tmp.XX", flags=0, p=0x7fffa401f898) at
>
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #27 from Yann Ylavic ---
Thanks Michael, unfortunately there are multiple threads being scheduled in
your gdb trace, like here:
>504 apr_bucket_read(e, , _read, APR_BLOCK_READ);
>(gdb) next
>[Switching to Thread
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #26 from Michael Haas ---
Created attachment 37273
--> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37273=edit
gdb with next
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #25 from Yann Ylavic ---
Bernhard, could you please "step" into apr_file_mktemp when reaching the
breakpoint (file "/tmp/modproxy.tmp.XX"), and once in hit "next" for the
entire apr_file_mktemp function?
--
You are receiving
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61820
--- Comment #21 from Giovanni Bechis ---
Honestly I do not think it makes sense to provide backward compatibility in
this case because it would deviate from the standard.
I am all for committing just the portion of the code that strips the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #24 from Bernhard Friedreich ---
(In reply to Rainer Jung from comment #22)
> Was mod_security also used in the original setup?
Do you mean my setup with "original setup"?
No we aren't using mod_security.
So we now have multiple
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64452
--- Comment #23 from Ruediger Pluem ---
The mod_proxy temporary files are created from the request pool (r->pool).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64476
--- Comment #1 from 林博仁(Buo-ren, Lin) ---
Related to https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51370 , however any
approach is fine as long as it is feasible.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64476
Bug ID: 64476
Summary: Allow non-interactive usage of htdigest
Product: Apache httpd-2
Version: 2.4.43
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61820
--- Comment #20 from Ruediger Pluem ---
I am not sure if we need to be able to provide the old behavior and if yes I
think the name of the environment variable should be "better" (whatever that
means, yes sweet naming discussions :-)).
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51370
林博仁(Buo-ren, Lin) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||buo.ren@gmail.com
--
You are
18 matches
Mail list logo
