core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. I wonder if that call is stray and it doesn't get along with the timeout handling on Windows

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-13 Thread Apache Lounge
Also here it is running now without issues till now here with AcceptFilter-none+SSL Steffen -Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:43 PM Newsgroups: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476 This patch

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. I wonder if that call is

RE: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
-Original Message- From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 14:32 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476) On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
for Windows bug#52476) On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:31:07PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: We picked up that apr_socket_opt_set() from the async-dev branch with r327872, though the timeout calls in there were changed subsequently. I wonder if that call is stray and it doesn't get along

RE: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group
-Original Message- From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:] Sent: Montag, 13. August 2012 15:35 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476) On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group ruediger.pl

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-13 Thread Jeff Trawick
: gmane.comp.apache.devel To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476 This patch is testing great so far with the AcceptFilter-none+SSL scenario on Windows. Index: server/core_filters.c === --- server/core_filters.c

Re: core filters vs non-blocking socket (was Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476)

2012-08-13 Thread Joe Orton
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:27:08AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: Does that explanation work for you? Yes, perfectly, thanks for taking the time. I stupidly forgot about the timeout calls... sorry! Regards, Joe

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix the defect. Yes, you are successfullly performing a blocking initial read.

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-10 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better

Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH)
Please code review the fix and let me know if you find any issue. Attached is the proposed patch for server\mpm\winnt\child.c Summary for code reviewers: If AcceptFilter is 'connect' or 'none', we read data from socket on worker thread. We use blocking recv and assign context-overlapped.Pointer

RE: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH)
Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Thanks Claudio From: Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:claud...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 11:13 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review the fix and let me know if you

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
: Thanks Claudio From: Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:claud...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 11:13 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review the fix and let me know if you find any issue. Attached is the proposed patch

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
function like recv() fails. (apr_get_os_error() otherwise) More comments below: Thanks Claudio From: Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:claud...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 11:13 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review the fix and let me know if you find any issue. Attached is the proposed patch for server\mpm\winnt\child.c Summary for code reviewers: If AcceptFilter is ‘connect’ or ‘none’, we read data from socket on worker thread

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread Jeff Trawick
...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 11:13 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Fix for Windows bug#52476 Please code review the fix and let me know if you find any issue. Attached is the proposed patch for server\mpm\winnt\child.c Summary for code reviewers

Re: Fix for Windows bug#52476

2012-08-09 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 8/9/2012 11:26 AM, Claudio Caldato (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Better patch, fixed minor issue after another code review. Sadly, it won't fix the defect. Yes, you are successfullly performing a blocking initial read. And the pipe remains unblocked for the rest of the connection, so any further