Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/27/2017 04:59 PM, Eric Covener wrote: I would just as well pull this block out entirely rather than taking the "fpm||" half of the test out. It seems like if you go out of your way to run a script with PATH_INFO set as some parameter that we shouldn't negate that. And like the non

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 6:46 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Is there someplace a set of examples on This Is What PHP and PHP-FPM >> Expect These Values To Be? >> >> Like a whole slew of: >> >> For

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Is there someplace a set of examples on This Is What PHP and PHP-FPM > Expect These Values To Be? > > Like a whole slew of: > > For request: /blag/futo/gtyj.php?qur=kjr > SCRIPT_NAME: Should be /gtyj.php >

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Is there someplace a set of examples on This Is What PHP and PHP-FPM Expect These Values To Be? Like a whole slew of: For request: /blag/futo/gtyj.php?qur=kjr SCRIPT_NAME: Should be /gtyj.php PATH_INFO Should be /blag/futo PATH_TRANSLATED Should be

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 06/20/2017 02:19 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> >> Here's why I'm asking: if I were to propose the attached patch for >> backport, what is the test case that *should* fail but doesn't? >> (proxy_fcgi.t passes, no

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Thanks! That’s exactly the kind of ballpark I was hoping to hear. ☺ From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:15 PM To: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS On Jun 27, 2017 12

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Jun 27, 2017 12:08 PM, "Moradhassel, Kavian" wrote: Did this discussion result in a decision to provide a fix for the bug in 2.4.26 and plan for a 2.4.27 soon? I'm wondering if I should be waiting for a 2.4.27 in the next handful of weeks, or if I should just accept that

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Message- From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:00 PM To: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/23/2017 09:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Over this weekend I may try to extend the current fcgi testing to include php-fpm... we should not, imo, fold in any patches until we can test each applicable use case and avoid regressions. I've also added one of the known 2.4.26 regressions to the

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Over this weekend I may try to extend the current fcgi testing to include php-fpm... we should not, imo, fold in any patches until we can test each applicable use case and avoid regressions. Hacking on the test will keep my mind off of things... > On Jun 23, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Jim Jagielski

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php Action application/x-php7-fpm /fpm virtual SetHandler proxy:fcgi://localhost:9001 SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://localhost:9001

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

This patch has fixed the issues for us. Do you feel this is a production worthy patch, or will there be more movement on it? — Jacob Perkins Product Owner cPanel Inc. jacob.perk...@cpanel.net Office: 713-529-0800 x 4046 Cell: 713-560-8655 > On Jun 20, 2017,

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 02:19 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: Here's why I'm asking: if I were to propose the attached patch for backport, what is the test case that *should* fail but doesn't? (proxy_fcgi.t passes, no problem.) And once we get that test case, can we show that it actually addresses a valid

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 06:39 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: BTW: the developers at Directadmin are aware of this bug. https://forum.directadmin.com/showthread.php?t=54952=2=281618#post281618 I ran into it while updating my Centos 6 servers. Thanks for the heads up. CC's are coming in on the related bugs in

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Jacob Champion in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:07:44 -0700): >On 02/08/2017 07:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> Assuming there's some alternate path that actually does change >> SCRIPT_NAME by default, we a) don't have any complaint about >> SCRIPT_NAME and b) have the SetEnv thing.

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 01:35 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: What requests and server config did you use with this test setup? Here's why I'm asking: if I were to propose the attached patch for backport, what is the test case that *should* fail but doesn't? (proxy_fcgi.t passes, no problem.) And once we

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 12:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: % cat fcgi.pl #!/usr/bin/env perl What requests and server config did you use with this test setup? --Jacob

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

% cat fcgi.pl #!/usr/bin/env perl use FCGI; use Socket; use FCGI::ProcManager; use Data::Dumper; $num_args = $#ARGV + 1; if ($num_args != 1) { print "\nUsage: fcgi.pl \n"; exit 1; } $proc_manager = FCGI::ProcManager->new( {n_processes => 1} ); $socket = FCGI::OpenSocket( $ARGV[0], 10 );

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Ahh... the tests from the orig bug report There have been several reports. I'm hoping to get the test case you were using to test the new `if (fpm ...` logic in mod_proxy_fcgi. Even if it was just a manual test; I just want to get it recorded in

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 10:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: It's already in the wild. We do not guarantee bug compatibility. That's our judgment call based on adoption, expected user disruption, time in the wild, etc. The purpose of my Showstopper was to revert to known-good behavior. That didn't happen,

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Ahh... the tests from the orig bug report > On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > SCRIPT_NAME

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 10:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Last I checked, it's in the test framework... Quick grep for "SCRIPT_NAME" in the tests doesn't turn up anything; can you point me to it? --Jacob

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >>> >>> On 06/20/2017 10:00 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> >> On 06/20/2017 10:00 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >>> You must presume it is in the wild, and shortening the exposure >>> by a matter of

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

As a general FYI: cPanel can’t release 2.4.26 until this is patched / fixed. We were bitten *hard* by the SCRIPT_URI breakage a while back, and this is going to put a blocker on our release. — Jacob Perkins Product Owner cPanel Inc. jacob.perk...@cpanel.net

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 06/20/2017 10:12 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> All this is, IMO, moot until we have a *patch*. > > Agreed. See my other fork of this thread for my questions on that. > >> Right now there >> is a work-around,

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Last I checked, it's in the test framework... > On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 06/20/2017 09:47 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> I think. Still trying to context switch back three months. > > Jim, do you have a good test case for the current FPM

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 09:47 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: I think. Still trying to context switch back three months. Jim, do you have a good test case for the current FPM logic so we don't break that with a fix? --Jacob

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 10:12 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: All this is, IMO, moot until we have a *patch*. Agreed. See my other fork of this thread for my questions on that. Right now there is a work-around, which, again IMO, reduces the "need" to release something "now"... the only question is whether

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 06/20/2017 10:00 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> You must presume it is in the wild, and shortening the exposure >> by a matter of days isn't significant. > > My point is that we should fix it ASAP. Days vs. more

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 10:00 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: You must presume it is in the wild, and shortening the exposure by a matter of days isn't significant. My point is that we should fix it ASAP. Days vs. more days may not be significant, but days vs. months is definitely significant when it

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 06/20/2017 09:16 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> It's released into the wild, what is done is done. > > > Of course. But having it in the wild for three days is different than having > it in the wild for six

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 09:07 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: Can we do a quick fixup and reroll before it's too late? And... what *is* the fixup? It looks like the logic here -- where we start at the end of SCRIPT_NAME (or the beginning of PATH_INFO) and work backwards -- is designed to stop at the first

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 09:16 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: It's released into the wild, what is done is done. Of course. But having it in the wild for three days is different than having it in the wild for six months. --Jacob

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 06/20/2017 09:14 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Would encourage us to wait at least a couple more days for >> other, unrelated regression reports to filter in while fixing this >> defect. But there is nothing

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 06/20/2017 09:14 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Would encourage us to wait at least a couple more days for other, unrelated regression reports to filter in while fixing this defect. But there is nothing stopping a 2.4.27 in rapid succession, we simply don't retroactively "retract" releases.

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 02/08/2017 07:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> Assuming there's some alternate path that actually does change >> SCRIPT_NAME by default, we a) don't have any complaint about >> SCRIPT_NAME and b) have the SetEnv

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 07:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote: Assuming there's some alternate path that actually does change SCRIPT_NAME by default, we a) don't have any complaint about SCRIPT_NAME and b) have the SetEnv thing. If we want more options, maybe we can stash this older SCRIPT_NAME into a new

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I have. With PHP-FPM as well as that Perl script FPM. All works > as expected. In my env, the change doesn't result in any change to SCRIPT_NAME. I only test w/ the perl script and use *.phx vs *.php to see both paths.

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-02-08 22:37 GMT+01:00 Jacob Champion : > On 02/08/2017 01:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> I am confused then... what else are you proposing? Eric's envar fix allows >> for people to basically adjust at their whim. What else is needed?? >> > > In my view, nothing else

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 01:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I am confused then... what else are you proposing? Eric's envar fix allows for people to basically adjust at their whim. What else is needed?? In my view, nothing else is needed. We revert my changes (and the followup query string modification) in

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 02/08/2017 12:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Have you even TRIED it? > > Yes, with the latest trunk, a config of > > >SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://localhost:10102/" > > > leads to a SCRIPT_FILENAME

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 12:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Have you even TRIED it? Yes, with the latest trunk, a config of SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://localhost:10102/" leads to a SCRIPT_FILENAME of 'proxy:fcgi://localhost:10102//tmp/apache-svn-trunk/htdocs/hello.php'. I have. With

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Have you even TRIED it? I have. With PHP-FPM as well as that Perl script FPM. All works as expected. > On Feb 8, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 02/08/2017 12:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Doesn't the below make it work without changes. >> >> #define

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 12:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Doesn't the below make it work without changes. #define FCGI_MAY_BE_FPM(dconf) \ (dconf && \ ((dconf->backend_type == BACKEND_DEFAULT_UNKNOWN) || \

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 02/08/2017 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> It does it automatically requiring no config-file changes >> to the end user. > > Anyone picking up the SCRIPT_FILENAME change (which was my change that > started this

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: It does it automatically requiring no config-file changes to the end user. Anyone picking up the SCRIPT_FILENAME change (which was my change that started this whole mess) still has to change their backend type manually, so I'm not convinced. But

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 02/08/2017 07:52 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> My concern is that nobody ever reported this config as broken and >> there's no telling what any on-by-default change here can break. > > +1. > > Maybe a different way

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On 02/08/2017 07:52 AM, Eric Covener wrote: My concern is that nobody ever reported this config as broken and there's no telling what any on-by-default change here can break. +1. Maybe a different way to put it: what does this approach solve that a revert-to-previous-behavior + FCGI-SetEnv

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Just to be clear, I simply *tested* against that config... the patch is not designed to do anything with it. It was basically to ensure that it introduced no regressions.

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Which ones? You mean the special case one? >> >> Would it be better if we did that *before* calling >> the fix_cgivars(). What is there makes

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Which ones? You mean the special case one? > > Would it be better if we did that *before* calling > the fix_cgivars(). What is there makes the following > config pair work as-is: > > AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php >

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Which ones? You mean the special case one? Would it be better if we did that *before* calling the fix_cgivars(). What is there makes the following config pair work as-is: AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php Action application/x-php7-fpm /fpm virtual SetHandler