Joe Lewis wrote:
Bernard T. Higonnet wrote:
Here's my system
FreeBSD 7.1-RELEASE #0
Apache/2.2.8 (Unix) PHP/5.2.10 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8
I'm trying to create a content-handler.
.
.
.
.
After a few minutes of searching for some example code and slapping it
together, I have an apache
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Dan Poirier wrote:
So if the content-length was parsed correctly, but the vulnerability
related to additional data wasn't fixed, this test would still pass?
(Since then we're not sending any more data than expected?)
That is phrased almost as if there
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
+1 for trunk, no need for httpd-2.2 - we will be breaking ABI and API at 2.0
and won't expect httpd 2.2 to compile against it without significant change.
I would prefer to stay with the '#ifdef APR_VERSION 2' because they
cost us nothing, and at least at the
Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:46:39AM -0400, Dan Poirier wrote:
I was looking at mod_auth_digest and bug 16057. Currently the shared
memory code in that module is disabled, and it turns out that has
effects throughout the module, such as disabling all client
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com
wrote:
In case you haven't already found it, ensure you have a read of:
http://www.fmc-modeling.org/category/projects/apache/amp/4_3Multitasking_server.html
It may not address the specific question, but
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Graham Dumpleton graham.dumple...@gmail.com
wrote:
In case you haven't already found it, ensure you have a read of:
http://www.fmc-modeling.org/category/projects/apache/amp/4_3Multitasking_server.html
It may not address the specific question, but
Dan Poirier wrote:
I've added a patch to bug 16057 to replace the use of shared memory with
socache. I was hoping the changes would be less pervasive, but the
shared memory assumption showed up in a lot of places.
Comments on the proposed changes would be more than welcome.
Can't wait to
On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
It breaks the 1:1: connection mapping to thread (or process) model
which is critical to low memory footprint, with thousands of
connections, maybe I'm just insane, but all of the servers taking
market share, like lighttpd,
