Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

On 06/30/2017 11:40 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: As far as I can tell it has no downsides, so my only request is that we add it to CHANGES (or some documentation, somewhere) and get a test in place before it goes back in. I may be able to get to that later this afternoon. This is taking me

Re: FastCGI env-vars

On 06/30/2017 09:43 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In any case, I think HEAD of the perl test framework is finally in shape to test and catch expectations regarding how we handle FCGI env-vars, both in "generic" situations as well as how php-fpm sees/expects them. At least, the current rev "passes"

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

On 06/30/2017 08:41 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: On 06/30/2017 08:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules Well... hm. I guess that's a valid point. My preference is still to remove it since it's undocumented, but if anyone else would like to

FastCGI env-vars

In any case, I think HEAD of the perl test framework is finally in shape to test and catch expectations regarding how we handle FCGI env-vars, both in "generic" situations as well as how php-fpm sees/expects them. At least, the current rev "passes" all tests based on my assumptions on what those

Re: svn commit: r1800307 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special? > > It fixes a regression in the last release, I think it's close

Re: svn commit: r1800307 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special? It fixes a regression in the last release, I think it's close enough in spirit as a showstopper.

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

On 06/30/2017 08:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules Well... hm. I guess that's a valid point. My preference is still to remove it since it's undocumented, but if anyone else would like to see it back in, I'm fine with that. Other

Re: svn commit: r1800307 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-06-30 17:34 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champion : > On 06/30/2017 08:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> -1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it. >> >> Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special? >> > > It's a reinstatement of my

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules, and since we don't know who/what may not being using or expecting it, and since it's useful info anyway and not a performance hit, it seems "prudent" to me. But I'm fine either way. > On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Jacob Champion

Re: svn commit: r1800307 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/30/2017 08:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: -1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it. Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special? It's a reinstatement of my previous 2.4.26 showstopper, which got no objections, was unaddressed by the

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

On 06/30/2017 05:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been reverted. I'm not arguing that it doesn't have value in theory, but IMO it doesn't belong in 2.4.x without a client. Right now it's just dead code. Anyone opposed to me re-adding

Re: svn commit: r1800428 - /httpd/test/framework/trunk/t/conf/proxy.conf.in

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > Kudos to jim and jchampion on these tests! Clearly!

Re: svn commit: r1800307 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

-1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it. Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special? That said, unconditional +1 to any mod_proxy_fcgi.c patches you or Jim or any committers determine for backport, I'd prefer we treat the module as experimental

Re: svn commit: r1800428 - /httpd/test/framework/trunk/t/conf/proxy.conf.in

Kudos to jim and jchampion on these tests! On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, wrote: > Author: jim > Date: Fri Jun 30 14:55:33 2017 > New Revision: 1800428 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1800428=rev > Log: > Ensure we are testing via FPM BackendType w/ the actual >

unsubscribe

unsubscribe

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been > reverted. > > Anyone opposed to me re-adding it to trunk and removing it > from the backport proposal? Would an fcgi query it and look at

Re: svn commit: r1800306 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/mappers/mod_actions.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_fcgi.c

I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been reverted. Anyone opposed to me re-adding it to trunk and removing it from the backport proposal? > On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:43 PM, jchamp...@apache.org wrote: > > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_actions.c > URL: >

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

> Am 30.06.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> >> On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> >>> IMHO mod_ssl shoudn't (BIO_)flush unconditionally in >>> modssl_smart_shutdown(), only in

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> IMHO mod_ssl shoudn't (BIO_)flush unconditionally in >> modssl_smart_shutdown(), only in the "abortive" mode of >> ssl_filter_io_shutdown(). > > I think the issue starts

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Luca Toscano wrote: > > 2017-06-30 12:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Ylavic : >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1706669 >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1734656 >> > >> > IIUC these ones are meant

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > Hi Luca, > > [better/easier to talk about details on dev@] > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote: >> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956 >> >> --- Comment #11 from Luca Toscano

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

Hi Yann! 2017-06-30 12:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Ylavic : > Hi Luca, > > [better/easier to talk about details on dev@] > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote: > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956 > > > > --- Comment #11 from Luca

Re: [Bug 60956] Event MPM listener thread may get blocked by SSL shutdowns

Hi Luca, [better/easier to talk about details on dev@] On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote: > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956 > > --- Comment #11 from Luca Toscano --- > Other two interesting trunk improvements that have