Hello!
The debian distributed Apache package, when SSL is activated segfaults
randomly. This has been only noticed when using Explorer, that shows a
"Connection closed" error. A simple reload shows the page properly.
I know this is very generic. There is any posibility to force apache to drop
co
Andrew Ho wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I ran some benchmarks on Apache 1.3.24 versus Apache 2.0.35 that you may
>find interesting. Particularly, I found the worker MPM suffers performance
>issues on our dual-processor Solaris x86 systems. pbinding Apache to a
>single processor impro
Hello,
I ran some benchmarks on Apache 1.3.24 versus Apache 2.0.35 that you may
find interesting. Particularly, I found the worker MPM suffers performance
issues on our dual-processor Solaris x86 systems. pbinding Apache to a
single processor improves performance at higher concurrency levels
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Yes, Martin noted this as well. because of this, and the
> Server header fixes, I'd like to see 1.3.25 in relatively short
> order once we find out why. From what I can see, we explicitely
> *remove* Transfer-Encoding, so I've no idea how it's getting
> back in there... yet
There is actually one fix in 1.3.24 and another (better) fix in 1.3.25-dev. :)
Michael Best wrote:
>
> Well that patch is against 1.3.24, so I'm not sure how it is fixed in
> 1.3.24.
>
> I'm currently experiencing something similar with Zope 2.4.3 and ProxyPass.
>
Michael Best wrote:
> I'm pretty sure it's not the syntax and it's somehow related to this
> multiple cookie issue, as when testing I get one cookie but not the other.
>
> I have tested 1.3.23 and 1.3.24.
>
> I am going to go test 1.3 CVS now.
The original f
Well that patch is against 1.3.24, so I'm not sure how it is fixed in
1.3.24.
I'm currently experiencing something similar with Zope 2.4.3 and ProxyPass.
Our user authentication (in Zope) is setting two cookies and under our
old apache version 1.3.6 (Stronghold 2.4.2), or using th
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > When I looked at the proxy code I could see nothing obvious that had
> > changed - proxy uses the core methods for sending headers and data to
> > the frontend, not sure what changed.
>
> If I had to guess, I would say that t
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Graham Leggett wrote:
> When I looked at the proxy code I could see nothing obvious that had
> changed - proxy uses the core methods for sending headers and data to
> the frontend, not sure what changed.
If I had to guess, I would say that this change:
http://cvs.apache.org/
Joshua Slive wrote:
> There appears to be a major problem in the 1.3.24 proxy. See:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7513
It was noted that this bug has appeared since 1.3.23 - will get a diff
between then and now to see if something along the way broke it.
When I loo
hua Slive wrote:
>
> There appears to be a major problem in the 1.3.24 proxy. See:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7513
>
>
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www
There appears to be a major problem in the 1.3.24 proxy. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7513
IIRC, this is fixed in 1.3.24.
>
> Looking at the change log, they mention a bug that multiple set-cookie's
> will fail (only the last one will be sent to the client, the proxy will
> "eat" the others). And it was true... The problem is that 1.3.24 final
> also h
Stas Bekman wrote:
> Pedro Melo Cunha sent this patch to the modperl list, it probably
> belongs here.
The bug he is referring to is fixed in v1.3.24 - or at least works in my
version. Will check again to see if it is actually fixed.
Regards,
Graham
--
-
Pedro Melo Cunha sent this patch to the modperl list, it probably
belongs here.
He also mentions that gnats won't accept his report.
Here is the original post:
Original Message
Subject: Be carefull with apache 1.3.24
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:01:24 +
From: Pedro
Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > (192.168.69.1) (pgtm0035)
> > client <--> Apache-1.3.13 <--> Apache-1.3.24
> >Proxy Proxy *and*
> > Origin Server
One question: in the above senario, whe
Martin Kraemer wrote:
> Still, we get chunked encoding where the client never expressed the wish
> (or capability) to handle it.
As far as I understand, the decision to chunk (or not) is handled within
buff.c - seems proxy is not signalling buff.c correctly on what the
protocol level is on the c
Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> Jim: Sorry I notice this so late :-( Only in this special combination does
> the bug happen.
>
No problem. Let me look into it. Worse-comes-to-worse, we announce
a patch-file (ala the pthread stuff with 1.3.23 and Solaris)
and work towards a 1.3.25 in a few weeks. I m
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 10:38:05PM +0100, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
>
> No, even worse: I now have two Apache-1.3.24 copies in a proxy chain.
What I tried:
SetEnv force-response-1.0 1
SetEnv downgrade-1.0 1
but it didn't change anything... Even when set on both se
Martin Kraemer wrote:
>
> No, even worse: I now have two Apache-1.3.24 copies in a proxy chain.
> Same behavior:
>
> Still, we get chunked encoding where the client never expressed the wish
> (or capability) to handle it.
>
Grrrr... and the 1.3.24 announ
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:40:44PM +0100, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
>
> (192.168.69.1) (pgtm0035)
> client <--> Apache-1.3.13 <--> Apache-1.3.24
>Proxy Proxy *and*
> Origin Server
No, even w
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 07:42:42AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Also +1 on MacOS X 10.1.3 (Darwin 5.2), Soalris 8 (sparc), RedHat 7.2
> and A/UX 3.1.1
and +1 on FreeBSD-4.5
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Mun
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:04:53PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
>
> Roy
I just notice that there are problems with the proxy.
They manifest in a combination of an "old" proxy (Apache/1.3.13-dev)
and the new p
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> Don't you have to do something like:
> # ./configure --enable-module=foo --enable-shared=foo
> Yeah... That works :)
Ah. That would explain it. :) Thanks.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolle
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>
> I already mentioned this on pmc@, but for the record, I've tested it with
> Solaris 2.7 (sparc), and it's running smoothly. +1.
>
Also +1 on MacOS X 10.1.3 (Darwin 5.2), Soalris 8 (sparc), RedHat 7.2
and A/UX 3.1.1
--
===
Tarball tested on Apple MacOS/X 10.1.3 (Darwin/PPC 5.3) with no problems. +1
Pier
"Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the ./configure --enable-shared=foo syntax actually work, or am I
> just being a retard?
Don't you have to do something like:
# ./configure --enable-module=foo --enable-shared=foo
Yeah... That works :)
Pier
I already mentioned this on pmc@, but for the record, I've tested it with
Solaris 2.7 (sparc), and it's running smoothly. +1.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
"Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Tarball tested on AIX 4.3.3 and Solaris 8 (x86) with no problems. +1
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Tested on Slackware Linuc 2.4.4 with no problems also.
--
Pilgrim, how you journey on the road you chose
To find out where the winds die and where the stories go
--Pilgrim (Enya - A Day Wi
Tarball tested on RH Linux 2.2.16-22 with no problems. +1
Roy
Apache 1.3.24 checks out OK on TPF.
David McCreedy
Jim Jagielski
It *should*
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
>
> Does the ./configure --enable-shared=foo syntax actually work, or am I
> just being a retard?
>
> Thanks,
> Cliff
>
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http:
Does the ./configure --enable-shared=foo syntax actually work, or am I
just being a retard?
Thanks,
Cliff
>From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Win32 Apache 1.3.24 httpd binaries available for testing
>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:18:31 -0600
>
>The Win32 installers with signatures are avai
I'd like to release this Saturday... This implies moving the tarballs
tomorrow. The quickened schedule is for obvious reasons :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A socie
... are available on http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will l
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>what about moving the tag?
>
>
> AIUI that's verboten under 1.3's release model.
ah, ok, just saw the vulnerability report. no questions than. :)
_
Stas Be
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> what about moving the tag?
AIUI that's verboten under 1.3's release model.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottesville, VA
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
>>-D_GNU_SOURCE,
>
>
> Sorry, too late... Jim tagged it about an hour ago.
what about moving the tag?
in any case how hard is to
> >
> > On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour (11am Eastern)...
> > >
> > > --
> > >
>
> > > =
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
> -D_GNU_SOURCE,
Sorry, too late... Jim tagged it about an hour ago.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PRO
Before releasing 1.3.24, can we please resolve the issue with
-D_GNU_SOURCE, before people start complaining that they cannot build
mod_perl-1.x with apache-1.3 and perl 5.8.0? The earlier this thing
gets fixed the less bug reports we will get.
Thanks!
>>I'm looking to tag-and-
CHANGES is your friend :)
Austin Gonyou wrote:
>
> Just FMI,
> If I'm on 1.3.23 now, would it behove me to go to this release for any
> major reasons?
>
> On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.
Just FMI,
If I'm on 1.3.23 now, would it behove me to go to this release for any
major reasons?
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 08:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour
I'm looking to tag-and-roll 1.3.24 within the hour (11am Eastern)...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a li
There are two other places in mod_proxy the MIN macro gets used.
Shouldn't those get cast to the desired return type as well?
This one's a time_t:
proxy_cache.c line 1175 maxage = MIN(maxage_req, maxage_cresp);
and this one's a size_t:
proxy_util.c line 734 strncpy(valbuf, list, MIN(p-list,
s
OK, I'll fix and commit this tonight.
Chuck
On Friday, April 19, 2002, at 02:07 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 10:03 AM 3/19/2002, you wrote:
>> At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
>> > : warning C4018: '<' : s
I thought the problem was the type mismatch between the args of the MIN
(one unsigned, the other not).
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> At 10:03 AM 3/19/2002, you wrote:
> >At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > >C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
> > > :
At 01:07 PM 04/19/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 10:03 AM 3/19/2002, you wrote:
>>At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
>> > : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
>> >
>> >n = ap_bread(f, buf,
At 10:03 AM 3/19/2002, you wrote:
>At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
> > : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
> >
> >n = ap_bread(f, buf, MIN(buf_size, len - total_bytes_rcvd));
>
>I had posted a
At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
> : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
>
>n = ap_bread(f, buf, MIN(buf_size, len - total_bytes_rcvd));
>
>Whoever is hacking in proxy, feel free to correct.
>
>[Th
At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
> : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
>
>n = ap_bread(f, buf, MIN(buf_size, len - total_bytes_rcvd));
>
>Whoever is hacking in proxy, feel free to correct.
>
>[Th
At 10:42 PM -0600 3/7/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
> : warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
>
>n = ap_bread(f, buf, MIN(buf_size, len - total_bytes_rcvd));
>
>Whoever is hacking in proxy, feel free to correct.
>
>[Th
C:\clean\apache-1.3\src\modules\proxy\proxy_util.c(565)
: warning C4018: '<' : signed/unsigned mismatch
n = ap_bread(f, buf, MIN(buf_size, len - total_bytes_rcvd));
Whoever is hacking in proxy, feel free to correct.
[The only other emits according to win32 are FD_SET obscurity.]
Hi,
I am not sure whether it is because Mac OS X has changed in
later versions, but the attached patch turns of the
use of hsregex.
That will stop all the following warnins when Apache version 1.3.23
is used striaght from the box:
../include/hsregex.h:22: warning: redefinition of macro ap_privat
Hello!
We have been looking forward to v1.3.24 since we have huge problems with
hanging threads with apache 1.3.23 under heavy load and large POSTs from the
clients. Is this beeing fixed? I haven't seen anything about it!
This bug has been reported by others also:
http://bugs.apache.org/index.c
Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to get the NetWare log rotation module checked in. I
> should have it in fairly quickly.
I thought no new features were going into the 1.3.* tree?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (michael handler) washington, dc
:52:20 AM >>>
There are some outstanding patches still for 1.3.24, no?
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|]
http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little
There are some outstanding patches still for 1.3.24, no?
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> * On 2002-02-05 at 16:42,
> Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
> >
> > I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release.
>
> What's the reason for *not* waiting? In what
From: "Bill Stoddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:47 PM
> I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release. Allan Edwards
>has
> been able to reproduce the problem and it is looking more and more like an XP bug.
>W
At 3:17 PM -0600 2/5/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>From: "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
>
>
>> I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
>> creates heartburn for anyone, s
* On 2002-02-05 at 16:42,
Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release.
What's the reason for *not* waiting? In what way did 1.3.23 regress?
(I.e., what deadly bug is in 1.3.23 that
I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release. Allan Edwards
has
been able to reproduce the problem and it is looking more and more like an XP bug. We
send a buffer full of "A"'s on the send and the network gets an equal number of trashed
bytes.
In the u
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
>
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTEC
From: "Jim Jagielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
> I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
> creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
Jim,
I'm suspicious that whatever bug we hit on 2.0 with
I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society
>Here's a patch to bail out on ./Configure errors. Sorry about the >&3
>redirection, but without it, we would have to create an intermediate
>file (and need to prevent race conditions, need to clean up & all that).
Let me see look into this... I think there's a clearer way...
>Also, I added a 2>
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Kraemer, Martin wrote:
> Here's a patch to bail out on ./Configure errors. Sorry about the >&3
> redirection, but without it, we would have to create an intermediate
> file (and need to prevent race conditions, need to clean up & all that).
Only I forgot
Here's a patch to bail out on ./Configure errors. Sorry about the >&3
redirection, but without it, we would have to create an intermediate
file (and need to prevent race conditions, need to clean up & all that).
Also, I added a 2>&1 redirection to Configure's sanity check report
(without it, the
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 04:34:14PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> if [ "x$quiet" = "xyes" ]; then
> (cd $src; \
> ./Configure ${vflag} -file Configuration.apaci >/dev/null || \
> exit $?);
> else
Nope -- this will do the same as it did: terminate the subshell
with an erro
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>
> if [ "x$quiet" = "xyes" ]; then
> (cd $src; \
> ./Configure ${vflag} -file Configuration.apaci >/dev/null || \
> exit $?);
The exit $? *inside* the subshell is redundant. As mentioned in my previous
email (you may not have seen it yet) the error
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know how
> to catch a bad exit from apache-1.3/src/Configure in the
> apache-1.3/configure code below and make sure that configure
> exits with a bad status too?
>
> if [ "x$quiet" = "xyes" ]; then
> (cd $src; ./Con
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
>
> By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know how to catch
> a bad exit from apache-1.3/src/Configure in the apache-1.3/configure
> code below and make sure that configure exits with a bad status too?
>
> if [ "x$quiet" = "xyes" ]; then
> (cd $src; ./Co
Dale Ghent wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> | I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
> | pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
>
> I don't know, I think it might b
Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My issue with including libpthread on Solaris builds that do not use
> HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT is that, as stated by the Sun docs at the
> URL I posted yesterday, that unnecessary overhead is introduced into the
> proces as thread-related structures
Dale Ghent wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch to add -DUSE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT to CFLAGS for
> Solaris.
>
Not needed. The 1.3.23 code *as is* makes pthread the default for Solaris.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL
Dale Ghent wrote:
>
>
> My issue with including libpthread on Solaris builds that do not use
> HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT is that, as stated by the Sun docs at the
> URL I posted yesterday, that unnecessary overhead is introduced into the
> proces as thread-related structures and environment
On 2 Feb 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
| what the heck is HPSA?
|
| I thought you wanted pthread mutex to be the default on Solaris and
| not just a choice (like it is now)? Was that somebody else?
HPSA Is my way of saying HAVE_PTHREAD_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT without having to
type out that long dang str
Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Dale Ghent wrote:
>
> | I still think that it's a bad idea to unconditionally include libpthread
> | on Solaris builds in cases where HPSA is not enabled, which would be
> | (relatively) rare situations because HPSA is not the default
Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> | I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
> | pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
>
> I don't kn
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Dale Ghent wrote:
| I still think that it's a bad idea to unconditionally include libpthread
| on Solaris builds in cases where HPSA is not enabled, which would be
| (relatively) rare situations because HPSA is not the default for Solaris.
Replying to my own email here.
I fi
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
| I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
| pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
I don't know, I think it might be premature to do that.
I still think that it&
> Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
> > pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
>
> +1 from me :(
+1
Bill
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
> pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
+1 from me :(
By the way... would a shell expert such as yourself know h
I'd like for us to consider releasing 1.3.24 specifically for the Solaris
pthread fix. I offer to be RM. I'll update STATUS for voting and comments.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
87 matches
Mail list logo
