porting mod_iptos to 2.x

i'd like to port mod_iptos to 2.x ... and preferably have it accepted into the main distribution. in 1.3.x it was trivial to do mod_iptos as a module because all i had to do was setsockopt(r->connection->client->fd, IPPROTO_IP, IP_TOS, ...). i've already se

redirect vs. redirectmatch and relativeuri

can anyone remember, or explain why, "redirect /foo /bar" isn't permitted, but "redirectmatch /foo /bar" is? (i haven't looked to see if this bizarreness is fixed in 2.0 or not.) -dean

Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?

[a little birdie said folks were quoting me ;) hi!] On 16 Sep 2002, Brian Pane wrote: > Linux kernel modules are a special case due to some characteristics > that don't apply to Apache: > * Most Linux kernel modules are available in source form most are available in source form simply because

apache bug: general/9187 (fwd)

hey -- i was just cleaning out my [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailbox (so much spam :) and found this. it appears to be a bug i fixed in 1.3 but the fix wasn't applied to 2.0? is there any general plan to sweep through 1.3 fixes and merge them into 2.0? -dean -- Forwarded message -- Date

Shared Memory Problem (fwd)

fyi: in 1.3.x this used to give an informative error on linux telling the user to recompile their kernel for sysv ipc support. (i'm assuming ap_mm_create is a 2.0 symbol name...?) -dean -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:30:34 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Da

Re: [PATCH 2] speedup for apr_table_t

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > Good point--it's possible to construct an O(n^2) attack with this > patch. The same is true of qsort, which is O(n^2) in the worst > case, but it's admittedly a lot harder to construct the worst-case > data set with qsort. hmm yeah i guess that's true.

Re: [PATCH 2] speedup for apr_table_t

On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > * A rewrite of apr_table_overlap() that uses a hash > table (sort of) instead of qsort i'm not sure this part of the patch is a good idea. the reason apr_table_overlap() uses qsort is to prevent various O(n^2) DoS attacks (both time & space). with

Re: [2.0] lstat's in spite of AllowOverride None

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michael Douglass wrote: > I'd be weary of caching the lstat() information for more than the > current connection; you don't want someone to abuse that cache by > creating a symlink AFTER letting apache cache the information. if an attacker can create symlinks they can just as

Re: stuck in keepalive (apache 1.3)

On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Stipe Tolj wrote: > I have reported such hanginf keepalive childs on the Cygwin 1.x > platform. > > These come up after some days of load and ussually go up to 50-60 > "blocked" keepalive childs. Recently (after 16 days httpd uptime) the > whole scoreboard "flushed" and the h

Re: What to do about tables?

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > 3. Keep using apr_table_t for the fields in request_rec, and redesign >the internals of apr_table_t to support O(log(n)) access whatever you do please remember to make sure you don't consume lots of extra memory for the many tables which have only 1 or

Re: MPM re-write for network logic

On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2001 04:35 pm, dean gaudet wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > I am trying to remove the network logic from the MPMs, so that modules > > > can implement different transport layers. &

Re: MPM design abuse (was: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server/mpm/preforkprefork.c)

i tend to agree with greg... this all seems to be contrary to the original MPM goals which was to provide a method of accessing the fastest and most scalable socket -> worker mapping on each platform. it looks like you're making all the world have to function like unix. -dean On Tue, 13 Nov 200

Re: MPM re-write for network logic

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > I am trying to remove the network logic from the MPMs, so that modules can > implement different transport layers. are you referring to multiplexing transport layers? 'cause what's there already should work fine for non-multiplexed transports... i.e. you

Re: stuck in keepalive (apache 1.3)

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote: > Curious what insite Dean had into suggesting a change from SIGALRM to > SIGUSR2. the two places the children were hanging (in PR#3906) were in places that the parent was supposed to deliver SIGALRM. they weren't hard hangs because the SIGHUP was workin

[PATCH] Re: Trouble with accept serialization

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, [koi8-r] áÌÅËÓÁÎÄÒ wrote: > Hello Dean Gaudet, > > Could you help me in one question? Nobody can said me whats metter... > So, if i try to start my apache 1.3.22 on UnixWare 7, it is not run > and in then "error.log" writes message "No defaul

why i don't use calloc

fwiw, i've never used calloc. if i really need to memset something to 0 then i do it explicitly after the allocation. why? the reason has nothing to do with the maintainability arguments being presented here, and has everything to do with performance. study the following code and assembly. hi

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c

my personal opinion is that most uses of pcalloc() are just lazy programming. if maintainability is an issue then make a creator function or macro for your data structures. the only thing empirical here is that the person doing the pcalloc to palloc change wasn't thorough enough. it doesn't pro

Re: [PATCH] Remove the Port directive.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Thursday 04 October 2001 08:50 am, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > Listen 80 > > ServerName Foo.Com > > > > > > What happens? Presumably the vhost will never hear anything, > > but will/should we detect it and report it? > > We don't today. Should

Re: FW: Apache Optimization - Post-graduate Research

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > The other big complication is that we'd need a way to avoid blocking > on disk reads if a client requests a file that isn't currently in the > filesystem cache. I guess mincore(2) would work in cases where we happen > to have the file mmap'ed, but is ther

Re: FW: Apache Optimization - Post-graduate Research

mation from Apache and > Linux documentation to optimize Apache to such an extend that it would > outperform all other servers, including Microsoft's IIS 5.0. > Unfortunately, the information I could gather from the Apache > Performance Notes (written by Dean Gaudet) and several

Re: FW: I18N Server Side support for OS running foreign locale

i think the answer is "yes if you use UTF-8, there is no wchar_t support". -dean On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Apache Software Foundation wrote: > Not acked, but I think the answer is "yes". > > - Forwarded message from "Vaughn, Louis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: "Vaughn, Louis" <[EMAIL PROT

Re: FW: Chunk size & RFC

you're misreading the RFC. spaces after the chunk-size are permitted, look at section 2.1, "Implied *LWS". the reason apache uses them is an optimisation within the buffering routines to avoid an extra memcpy, and this is one of the reasons the whitespace is permitted. it's unfortunate, i would

Re: -- Apache: Not enough file descriptors --

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, RCHAPACH Rochester wrote: > Yes, FD_SETSIZE is defined in sys/types.h on UNIX flavored > systems. If you set it to a high enough value > (i.e. #DEFINE FD_SETSIZE 65535 ) before sys/types.h gets included, > it will override the value set in sys/types.h. this isn't portable.

Re: [PATCH] Timeout-based DoS attack fix

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Ian Morgan wrote: > RecvTimeout 5 > > This will cause any incoming request to timeout if not completed within 5 > seconds. This will cause the above "null" connections to timeout very > quickly, thereby significantly reducing the number of wasted waiting server > instances.

Re: [PATCH] Re: apache-1.3.20 segfault?

yeah i considered that, but i don't think rr->filename can be NULL in 1.3... 'cause i don't think you can get rr->status == OK with a NULL filename... the only calls to ap_translate_name() which succeed are followed by ap_directory_walk() which tests for a NULL filename and sets it to a copy of t

RE: UUIDs in 2.0

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Sander Striker wrote: > Isn't there an apr_get_current_time() that is thread safe? > apr_time_now()? that's not the point. i'm guessing you haven't read the code i'm referring to. -dean

RE: UUIDs in 2.0

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Sander Striker wrote: > I believe uuids are modelled after dcerpc uuids. There is a Paul Leach > draft on uuids floating around on the net. I would appreciate it if this > could stay, it would benefit other projects aswell. i'm not arguing to get rid of uuids, i realise th

UUIDs in 2.0

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > Regarding APR's UUID solution: if you think it isn't "good enough", then I'd > be interested in knowing. It collects a decent amount of see and then hashes > it to get a "random" result. If there is more seed data that we could use, > then we should. i ha

Re: Apache-1.3: question about mod_unique_id

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Brad Nicholes wrote: >I checked with our CLIB people and they tell me that GetThreadID is > *not* unique. In other words, if a thread is created, it is assigned > an ID. If that thread is terminated and a new thread is created, the > new thread may reuse the ID from t

Re: Apache-1.3: question about mod_unique_id

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Günter Knauf wrote: > For NetWare I found this definition in ./netware/os.h: > #define getpid GetThreadID > and in the NetWare header nwthread.h GetThreadID() is defined as: > int GetThreadID( void ); > > for Win32 platform getpid() is defined in process.h: > _CRTIMP int __

Re: Apache-1.3: question about mod_unique_id

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 12:06:13AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >... > > > where the code uses a pid (getpid()) you need to use a concatenation of > > > pid and thread id. > > > > > > otherwise you violate some of the uniqueness guarantees. > > > >

Re: another map_to_storage gotcha.

On 12 Sep 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: > What I am suggesting is to move some of these configurations to > where they belong. +1. -dean

Re: [PATCH] resubmit new and improved ap_vrprintf fix to handle >4K

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > > > /* this will typically exit on the first test */ > > > for (f = r->output_filters; f != NULL; f = f->next) > > > if (strcasecmp("OLD_WRITE", f->frec->name) == 0) > > > break; > > > > > > i'm puking. strcasecmp strings

Re: [PATCH] resubmit new and improved ap_vrprintf fix to handle >4K

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 09:13:46PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote: > > buhhh? > > > > you guys built a zero-copy infrastructure and you're putting in a one-copy > > sprintf? > > sprintf varieties must be at least one-copy,

Re: [PATCH] resubmit new and improved ap_vrprintf fix to handle >4K

buhhh? you guys built a zero-copy infrastructure and you're putting in a one-copy sprintf? i don't get it. this new ap_rsprintf is less efficient than the ap_bsprintf in apache-1.3. also, wow, ap_rputc really sucks now. that's a lot of code (in buffer_output) compared to: *buf++ = c; gu

Re: Optimizing dir_merge()

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > . If the pool argument passed in merge_dir_configs doesn't match the base config, > it's out of scope! You must copy when the pool argument differs from the base! > > . Likewise, if you are changing parts of the add config, and the add c

Re: Optimizing dir_merge()

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > >Here's my take on the dir_merge patch I offered up. Please review for sanity. > > > Thanks! This looks clear and complete to me. > > There's one point at the end where I disagree, though it may be due to > a bad assumptio

Re: Apache-1.3: question about mod_unique_id

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Günter Knauf wrote: > Hi, I've compiled mod_unique_id for Win32 and for Netware, and on both > platforms it seems to work the same as with Unix, I can see a unique > id with SSI and cgi scripts; so can someone please explain why we have > the #error about not supporting multi

Re: chunking of content in mod_include?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > I don't care if mod_include buffers 200 Megs, as long as it is constantly doing > something with the data. If we have a 200 Meg file that has no SSI tags in > it, but we can get all 200 Meg at one time, then we shouldn't have any problem > just scanning t

Re: [PATCH 2] Re: [PATCH] performance patch for mod_log_config

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > dean gaudet wrote: > > > why is there a need for 15 entries? if it's a multiprocess server then > > there's only a need for 1 or 2 entries. if it's a multithreaded server > > then you need to lock the cache (which

Re: [PATCH] worker MPM: reuse transaction pools

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > Creating a pool requires locking a mutex. The more we scale, the worse we > perform. a mutex is not a requirement... as i explained several months ago. (and as greg mentioned, this patch just moves the mutex to the queue from the pool code, which makes

Re: [PATCH] worker MPM: reuse transaction pools

this is the wrong way to fix this problem. i can't imagine any reason why creating a pool should be slow -- rather than band-aid around it, i think it'd be better to find out that problem first. it should be as simple as a couple pointer operations. freelists are a feature of modern memory allo

why serialisation is required with multiple sockets

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Marc Slemko wrote: > > > There is nothing to test. Using the 1.3 process based model, you need > > serialized accepts if you have multiple listening sockets. Period. > > Unless your kernel socket or higher level accept f

Re: [PATCH 2] Re: [PATCH] performance patch for mod_log_config

why is there a need for 15 entries? if it's a multiprocess server then there's only a need for 1 or 2 entries. if it's a multithreaded server then you need to lock the cache (which you're not doing :) isn't the real win in eliminating both the divisions required by the explode time functions an

Re: remaining CPU bottlenecks in 2.0

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote: > * Collectively, stat and open comprise 5% of the total CPU time. > It would be faster to do open+fstat rather than stat+open (as > long as the server is delivering mostly 200s rather than 304s), > but that might be too radical a change. Anybody have

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server util_filter.c

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Tuesday 04 September 2001 09:16, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > Ryan, you may veto this commit. However, if you wish to repeal or > > modify our style guide, I suggest you call a vote. -- justin > > That is complete BS. We have a long standing tradi

Re: [PATCH] AcceptMutex and SingleListen runtime

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Martin Kraemer wrote: > I don't know whether Dean Gaudet is still lurking, maybe he knows > whether there are reasons which forbid the use of the > -DNO_SEM_UNDO alternative in apache itself. I was under the > impression that nobody implemented it yet, but i