Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 2009, at 03:27, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> [following up to Graham because two posts by him are all I have
> in this thread]
>
>> 2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
>>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
>>>
>>>
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
> KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>> 2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restricti
KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> 2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
>>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
>>> Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
>>> of restriction on the built-in script langua
On 8 Apr 2009, at 03:27, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
[following up to Graham because two posts by him are all I have
in this thread]
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better
option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications,
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> 2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
>>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
>>> Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
>>> of restriction on the built-in script la
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Paul Querna
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. April 2009 20:15
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: segfaults / core dumps caused by
> ap_internal_fast_redirect
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> wrote:
> > Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Gro
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> 2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>> Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
>> Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
>> of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on
>> st
2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei :
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>> Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
>
> Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
> of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on
> static documents (like *.html).
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind
of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on
static documents (like *.html).
# For example, when we want to a
Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option?
It concerns me that in your plans, even though you are changing the
security context of a single thread within an existing process, that
that thread may still has access to all the process memory and so
could read or modify me
Hello,
I've posted my idea to improve web-application security a few times
however, it could not interest folks unfortunatelly. :(
So, I would like to offer another approach for the purpose.
The attached patch is a proof of the concept of newer idea.
Any comments are welcome, and please feel free.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wrote:
> Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>> How to solve?
>>
>> I don't know. This is why I write this mail :-).
>
> We eliminate internal_fast_redirect ;-)
>
hell yeah, I would love to eliminate internal redirects completely.
On 04/07/2009 03:38 PM, jfcl...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jfclere
> Date: Tue Apr 7 13:38:01 2009
> New Revision: 762771
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=762771&view=rev
> Log:
> Arrange traces.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartmonitor.c
>
> Modified:
On 04/07/2009 02:10 PM, jfcl...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jfclere
> Date: Tue Apr 7 12:10:57 2009
> New Revision: 762730
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=762730&view=rev
> Log:
> Set keep_running and clean pool if not.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cluster/mod_heartm
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> How to solve?
>
> I don't know. This is why I write this mail :-).
We eliminate internal_fast_redirect ;-)
hi all,
please can I know is there any technical documentation for
mod_proxy_balancer module.
Best Regards,
H. Iroshan
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Joe Orton
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. April 2009 15:51
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: segfaults / core dumps caused by
> ap_internal_fast_redirect
>
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:29:20PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger,
> VF-Group" wrote:
> ...
> > I t
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>> Comments on interface or the minimal implementation details?
>>
>>
> Externally, the selection of the default MPM should match this logic
>> (slight expansion on Jim's simple default=event change):
>>
>> if have-APR_POLL
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Comments on interface or the minimal implementation details?
traditional:
--with-mpm=FOO includes the FOO mpm, statically linked
temporary hack:
--with-mpm=shared avoids building/linking in an MPM
future:
traditional --with-mpm is retained;
also support --with-mpms-shared=
I'm working on securing massive NameVirtualHost sites using SSL.
The SNI support should be avoided since we needed a stock Apache 2.x /
mod_ssl solution, so it prevent us to take a look at
mod_gnutls/gnutls.
Question : How hard will it be to have SNI support conditional and
activated/disabled by
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 01:29:20PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
...
> I think the reason for this behaviour is the following:
>
> 1. The subrequest created by mod_dir uses a subpool of r->pool for its
> allocations.
> 2. ap_internal_fast_redirect uses the data allocated out of this sub
Comments on interface or the minimal implementation details?
traditional:--with-mpm=FOO includes the FOO mpm, statically linked
temporary hack:
--with-mpm=shared avoids building/linking in an MPM
future:
traditional --with-mpm is retained;
also support --with-mpms-shared=MPM-LIST; this has to be u
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 7 Apr 2009, at 00:14, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of curiosity, why do we have two separate hooks with
>>> identical signatures running consecutively? AFAIK it's not historic -
>>> it goes right back t
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" [mailto:ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. April 2009 13:29
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: segfaults / core dumps caused by ap_internal_fast_redirect
> How to solve?
>
> I don't know. This is why I
Today I stubled accross some rather weird intermittent segfaults / core dumps
with trunk
plus APR trunk that get created when running the perl test framework. Below is
the stack trace:
#0 0x002a95f7f829 in kill () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6
#1
#2 ap_ident_lookup (r=0x2a9cc9fd50) at mod_id
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Kaspar Brand
> Gesendet: Montag, 30. März 2009 18:15
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)
>
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > Going through the archive I noticed several attachments
> with the same
> > basename and
26 matches
Mail list logo
