-Original Message-
From: Kaspar Brand [mailto:httpd-dev.2...@velox.ch]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 07:01
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Behavior of Host: vs. SNI Hostname in proxy CONNECT requests
On 12.12.2013 00:15, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
The rest of the
On 12/12/2013 10:28 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kaspar Brand [mailto:httpd-dev.2...@velox.ch]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 07:01
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Behavior of Host: vs. SNI Hostname in proxy CONNECT requests
On
On 12 Dec 2013, at 00:00, Kean Johnston wrote:
Hi all,
So I've been spending a fair bit of time inside Apache recently and I've seen
a pattern. Consider the following code (from mod_proxy_fcgi.c):
That's just minor sloppiness. Fixing it is a minor improvement,
and if you have the time
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:09, Eric Covener wrote:
My recollection was that it simply doesn't work (PR and quick test)
Nor should it! There's enough userland confusion between
URL-space and Filesystem-space. A change like r1031758
that introduces a little more clarity should IMHO be welcomed!
--
On 12.12.2013 10:16, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
I already asked on the mod_security developer mailing list for help, but
didn't get a response. So I'm trying my luck here.
On a Debian unstable installation (Apache 2.4.6, apr 1.4.8, apr-util
1.5.3, mod_security 2.7.5) I enabled mpm_worker and
Hi Ewald,
Am 12.12.2013 10:16, schrieb Ewald Dieterich:
[...] Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?
I would consider the segmentation faults to be bugs. The question is
whether they are bugs in httpd or in mod_security...
Looking at the backtraces I noticed that most threads are busy in
So I'm guessing that the use-cases described in
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54616
are bogus?
I'm no pro nor con the change, just trying to understand
if such a change has merit.
On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:18 AM, Nick Kew n...@webthing.com wrote:
On 11 Dec 2013, at
On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Obviously allocating too early and then throwing away the results of the
allocation is a waste as you've pointed out, and should ideally be smoked out
and fixed.
Agreed.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So I'm guessing that the use-cases described in
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54616
are bogus?
I'm no pro nor con the change, just trying to understand
if such a change has merit.
I think
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Kean Johnston kean.johns...@gmail.comwrote:
I'd love to see these things fixed, because they add up. If you post them
here they are likely to be reviewed very quickly, as they'll no doubt be
simple to review.
Cool. Here's a patch for the case I just
Hi all,
I have just tripped over a case where mod_auth_form has been configured to do
inline login. What is supposed to happen is that on successful parsing of the
POST of the login form, we do an internal redirect to turn the request back
into a GET (or whatever method the original form
Maybe it's broken in two stages, r-handler lost then mimetype copied
to handler?
The second stage could be ap_invoke_handler at the very last second
before the handler is called.
On 12/12/2013 11:53 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 12.12.2013 10:16, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
On a Debian unstable installation (Apache 2.4.6, apr 1.4.8, apr-util
1.5.3, mod_security 2.7.5) I enabled mpm_worker and configured a simple
reverse proxy. When I enable mod_security and then send large
Hi Graham,
Am 12.12.2013 14:28, schrieb Graham Leggett:
Does anyone know offhand where I should be looking for something that
sets a mime type? It seems that something is setting the handler
without checking first to see if the handler has been set already,
and this breaks form login.
You
I've proposed for backport...
On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Ewald Dieterich ewald_dieter...@t-online.de
wrote:
On 12/12/2013 11:53 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 12.12.2013 10:16, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
On a Debian unstable installation (Apache 2.4.6, apr 1.4.8, apr-util
1.5.3, mod_security
On 12.12.2013 16:16, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
On 12/12/2013 11:53 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 12.12.2013 10:16, Ewald Dieterich wrote:
On a Debian unstable installation (Apache 2.4.6, apr 1.4.8, apr-util
1.5.3, mod_security 2.7.5) I enabled mpm_worker and configured a simple
reverse proxy. When I
The patch does not help but I think it got me on the right track though I'm
a bit confused about the 'dirty' flag. Where is that flag supposed to be
used ? In both trunk and 2.4.7 I only found one place
(./modules/session/mod_session.c:200) where that flag is used but none that
remotely looked
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:25:32 -0800
Mike Rumph mike.ru...@oracle.com wrote:
While researching mod_remoteip to work on httpd bugs 55635 and 55637,
I noticed a few unrelated blemishes in mod_remoteip.c.
These include some redundant code and comment typos.
The attached patch against httpd trunk
Hi devs,
This was pointed out by Joe Orton's comment at
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335#c40.
Here is a proposal (patch against ap_proxy_http_process_response) to
address the double lifetime transformation of the buckets from the backend
when its connection is released
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a proposal (patch against ap_proxy_http_process_response) to
address the double lifetime transformation of the buckets from the backend
when its connection is released early (on EOS, before the last buckets are
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:46:32 +0100
Peter Sylvester peter.sylves...@edelweb.fr wrote:
The rest of the SNI hostname processing steps are where the problem
lies. We still need to perform http headers - vhost translation
after the connection is established. If there's any desire to do
SNI
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:28:16 +
Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kaspar Brand [mailto:httpd-dev.2...@velox.ch]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 07:01
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Behavior of Host: vs.
This is directed at trawick because svn blame puts the blame on him/her
but others may have some useful answer. There is this bit of code in that
file (send_environment):
avail_len = 16 * 1024; /* our limit per record, which could have been up
* to
On 12 Dec 2013, at 16:57, Thomas Eckert thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com wrote:
The patch does not help but I think it got me on the right track though I'm a
bit confused about the 'dirty' flag. Where is that flag supposed to be used ?
In both trunk and 2.4.7 I only found one place
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:34 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:25:32 -0800
Mike Rumph mike.ru...@oracle.com wrote:
While researching mod_remoteip to work on httpd bugs 55635 and
I noticed a few unrelated blemishes in mod_remoteip.c.
These include
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Kean Johnston kean.johns...@gmail.comwrote:
This is directed at trawick because svn blame puts the blame on him/her
but others may have some useful answer. There is this bit of code in that
file (send_environment):
avail_len = 16 * 1024; /* our limit per
On 12/12/2013 10:11 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
There's nothing magic about it, and there is indeed the potential for a
problem with the environment variable limitation. Generally I preferred to
have a lower per-request memory use even if it takes another write to send
all the envars to the
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Kean Johnston kean.johns...@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/12/2013 10:11 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
There's nothing magic about it, and there is indeed the potential for a
problem with the environment variable limitation. Generally I preferred
to
have a lower
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 16:57, Thomas Eckert thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com wrote:
The patch does not help but I think it got me on the right track though I'm
a bit confused about the 'dirty' flag. Where is that flag supposed to
Hello Bill,
Thanks for the advice.
Leaving filename as is is okay for me, I just thought I saw it split at
other places in the code comments.
So should I resubmit the patch or is one of the committers okay with
picking and choosing?
The patch overall was just some small things that I noticed
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a proposal (patch against ap_proxy_http_process_response) to
address the double lifetime transformation of the buckets from the backend
Just to make things easier here are the separate patches with your ideas
included.
Thanks,
Mike Rumph
On 12/12/2013 1:37 PM, Mike Rumph wrote:
Hello Bill,
Thanks for the advice.
Leaving filename as is is okay for me, I just thought I saw it split
at other places in the code comments.
So
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:34 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 19:10:21 +0100
Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Yann Ylavic
We can also save stack space by changing:
char server_portstr[32];
to:
char server_portstr[6];
Or if we want to future-proof against the small possibility of a new TCP
standard that has larger port numbers and negative port numbers:
char server_portstr[sizeof(apr_port_t)*241/100+3]; /*
On 12.12.2013 20:06, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:28:16 +
Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
The reason is that you can define SSL parameters in Virtual hosts
like SSLCiphers or SSLProtocols. If Host header and SNI host match
you can be
Trunk
=
r1550650 for comments upodate
r1550651 for redundant check
2.4.x
=
r1550652 for comments upodate
The other one will be proposed for backport with other easy patches to
synch 2.4 and trunk in the coming days.
BTW, for someone who has write access to APR tree,
Am 12.12.2013 11:27, schrieb Nick Kew:
On 12 Dec 2013, at 02:41, Ingo Walz wrote:
So socache with shared memory (shmcb) is the way you would suggest?
How important is the sharing in your case? If it's just about performance,
you may be better-off accepting that each process will repeat the
37 matches
Mail list logo
