On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Researching as well.
Any new results from your research? Otherwise I would like to commit the latest
version
of my patch to trunk if you have no objections.
Regards
Rüdiger
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Sorry, maybe I am only confused, but I think I disagree with you on that.
The proxy code is reading the input filter chain in a loop and does repeated
calls to ap_get_brigade without doing any more things with these brigades
it
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
feedback.
One technical question: As this bug was reported
On 10/19/05, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/19/2005 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
The problem is -not- in creating the transient buckets (if they are
sent, that's
goodness). The problem is in transforming them to persistant buckets
before the
On 10/21/05, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
feedback.
Just got a
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Researching as well.
Any new results from your research? Otherwise I would like to commit the latest
version
of my patch to trunk if you have no objections.
Yes ... and from the breadth of your other
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
feedback.
One technical question: As
--On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
like to propose this patch for backport. As I am only committer am I
allowed
- to add it to the 2.0.x STATUS file
- add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts
On 10/21/2005 08:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem
- add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts towards quorum. -- justin
Sorry, but I am confused. I thought only PMC members have
On 10/21/2005 07:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
We might be better off using this fix (and documenting the usage of all get
brigade calls w.r.t. transient buckets), while in 2.0.x we might want to
return an allocated bucket in mod_ssl to ensure third party 2.0
--On October 21, 2005 11:34:47 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry, but I am confused. I thought only PMC members have binding votes.
Or is my vote binding because I proposed the backport?
Since you have commit access to httpd, the intent is for you to be able to
vote on
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/21/2005 08:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem
- add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts towards quorum. -- justin
Sorry, but I am confused.
Attached my (currently) final versions of the patches to fix PR37145 on 2.0.x
(37145_2.0.x.diff)
and on trunk (37145.diff). Comments / thoughts / votes are highly appreciated
as I want to
commit to trunk and propose it for backport in 2.0.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 02:46 AM, Ruediger
Meanwhile I identified 3 others positions in the proxy code path which can
cause this kind of trouble.
Please find the updated patches attached. Using APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT in a loop
with ap_get_brigade
on the same brigade seems to be troublesome :-).
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 11:10 AM,
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Meanwhile I identified 3 others positions in the proxy code path which can
cause this kind of trouble.
Please find the updated patches attached. Using APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT in a loop
with ap_get_brigade
on the same brigade seems to be troublesome :-).
Ruediger - I'm
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Ruediger - I'm questioning if it's the BRIGADE_CONCAT, or actually if we
are
failing to respect transient buckets in the core / ssl filters. If we are
failing to pay attention to transient buckets (or not allocating the
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Ruediger - I'm questioning if it's the BRIGADE_CONCAT, or actually if we
are
failing to respect transient buckets in the core / ssl filters. If we are
failing to pay attention to transient buckets (or not
On 10/19/2005 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
The problem is -not- in creating the transient buckets (if they are
sent, that's
goodness). The problem is in transforming them to persistant buckets
before the
core, ssl, or other filters who have set-aside operations
The following patch should fix PR37145. I would like to hear some comments /
thoughts
from brigade / buckets and proxy gurus on this.
Although this problem has been reported against 2.0.55, I cross checked
and this problem is also in the trunk.
Regards
Rüdiger
Index:
Attached a new version of the patch that uses ap_save_brigade.
Again for 2.0.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 02:18 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
The following patch should fix PR37145. I would like to hear some comments /
thoughts
from brigade / buckets and proxy gurus on this.
Although this
21 matches
Mail list logo
