On Friday 05 October 2007, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Once APR is out, I'll plan on a httpd release too.
There are several backport proposals in the STATUS file
missing only one vote. So I guess it is voting time :-).
Maybe someone could also look at
On Monday 08 October 2007, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 5, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Maybe someone could also look at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829
A quick review seems to indicate that the suggested patch could
result in a worker accepting
Hi,
there is still the problem that during a request, many bucket brigades
being created which are only cleaned up after the request is
finished, see
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23567 . There was
some discussion about retaining ownership of a brigade when
Hi,
On Monday 03 December 2007, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
But I found two locations where the creation of a new brigade could
be avoided:
- In buffer_output()/ap_old_write_filter(), it is possible to keep
the brigade around and reuse it after the next flush.
- In ap_http_chunk_filter(), a new
On Sunday 09 December 2007, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But I think your patch to server/protocol.c can be done much
simpler. Can you try the following and let us know if this helps as
well:
Index: server/protocol.c
===
---
*) http_protocol: Escape request method in 413 error reporting.
Determined to be not generally exploitable, but a flaw in any case.
PR 44014 [Victor Stinner victor.stinner inl.fr]
This is CVE-2007-6203. Maybe you should add the reference to the CHANGES file?
Cheers,
Stefan
On Monday 17 December 2007, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is CVE-2007-6203. Maybe you should add the reference to the
CHANGES file?
I don't think that's a good idea since we don't want to mislead
users into thinking a security issue exists here.
it potentially does, just not of
Hi,
this bug can be quite annoying because of the resources used by the hung
processes. It happens e.g. under Linux when epoll is used.
The patch from http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829#c14
has been in Debian unstable/Ubuntu hardy for several weeks and there have
not been
Joe Orton wrote:
I mentioned in the bug that the signal handler could cause undefined
behaviour, but I'm not sure now whether that is true. On Linux I can
reproduce some cases where this will happen, which are all due to
well-defined behaviour:
1) with some (default on Linux) accept mutex
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Boyle Owen wrote:
It is clear to me now that this is a storm in a teacup. I note also that
the vulnerability never made it to the CVE database so I think we can
decide on no further action.
That's not true. CVE-2008-0455 and CVE-2008-0456 have been assigned to
this
Hi,
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829, IMHO. The
patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be the perfect
solution.
Cheers,
Stefan
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
for 2.2.9, it would be nice to fix the epoll issue PR 42829,
IMHO. The patch in the bug report works, even if it may not be
the perfect solution.
From what I can see, there is no real patch available or fully
tested enough to warrant anything
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Jim Jagielski wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering
that is is not clear how an elegant solution would
On Friday 30 May 2008, Paul Querna wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21137 has
been in Debian testing and unstable for about 6 months without
problems. It is not an elegant solution but it works. Considering
that is is not clear how an elegant solution would look
On Friday 30 May 2008, Nick Kew wrote:
I don't think I share your implied view about how grave this is.
I guess this is the main (or only?) problem with this patch/bug. I got
quite a few people complaining about it and therefore I wanted to fix
it.
I respect your opinion, but when
Hi,
On Wednesday 23 July 2008, Joe Orton wrote:
when compiled with gcc 4.3 on Sparc under Linux, Apache 2.2.9
sometimes crashes with SIGBUS in the ssl shmcb code.
Adding __attribute__((__noinline__)) (which is already present in
ssl_scache_shmcb.c for the memset call) to the memcpy
Hi,
there is the problem that with prefork mpm, child processes can hang
in apr_pollset_poll() on graceful restarts or shutdowns
(https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42829). This
happens under Linux with epoll, and there is now also a report that
the same problem exists with
Hi,
for people who use a system wide mime.types as TypesConfig, it would
be nice if there was a way to remove some type associations in the
apache config. For example, nowadays .es seems to be ecmascript
(according to RFC 4329), but it is also often used for spanish
language encoding.
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Pranav Desai wrote:
I am trying to add tproxy4
(http://www.balabit.com/support/community/products/tproxy/) support to
the mod_proxy to achieve transparency. It basically involves a kernel
patch which allows binding of a socket to foreign address among other
things. At
Hi,
thanks for following up on this and sorry for the late response.
On Wednesday 07 January 2009, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Initial testing of your idea for a timeout was promising.
I couldn't reproduce any hangs under linux with the patch you commited
to trunk.
In my patch I tried to avoid that
Hi,
the epoll limit in new linux kernels can cause problems because of
insufficient error checking in httpd. The most obvious problem was fixed
in
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46467 in MPM prefork,
but mod_cgi, mod_proxy_connect, and the other MPMs should also check for
Hi,
is there any particular reason why httpd does not automatically fall
back to read/write if sendfile failed [1]? Or is the only problem
that nobody has written the code yet? I have googled a bit but have
not found any discussion about this.
Cheers,
Stefan
[1] The linux sendfile man page
On Thursday 09 April 2009, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Only you would know that. But then, I could be pointing you at the
wrong MPM. There is from memory another by another name developed
outside of ASF which intends to do the same think. The way it is
implemented is probably going to be different
Hi,
when backporting the CVE-2009-1195 fix in r773881+r779472 from
branches/2.2.x to 2.2.9, I noticed that it causes a test failure when
compiling mod_perl 2.0.4. Since I am neither familiar with mod_perl nor
with the mod_include internals, maybe someone else can check if this is a
necessary
On Monday 01 June 2009, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This patch works for me; please try it with the Perl suite.
That fixed it. Thanks
Stefan
On Saturday 20 December 2008, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
for people who use a system wide mime.types as TypesConfig, it
would be nice if there was a way to remove some type associations
in the apache config. For example, nowadays .es seems to be
ecmascript (according to RFC 4329), but it is also
Nick Kew wrote:
Is this worth hacking up, or more trouble than it saves?
It seems it already exists (I haven't tested it, though):
ftp://ftp.monshouwer.eu/pub/linux/mod_antiloris/mod_antiloris-0.3.tar.bz2
Hi,
we have received a bug report [1] that a DoS is possible with
mod_deflate since it does not stop to compress large files even after
the network connection has been closed. This allows to use large
amounts of CPU if there is a largish (10 MB) file available that has
mod_deflate enabled.
Hi,
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0). As
far as I understand it, the reason is that mod_php uses ap_rwrite
which creates transient buckets. When the connection is closed by the
client, these
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
far as I understand it, the reason is that mod_php uses ap_rwrite
which creates transient buckets. When the connection is closed by the
client, these buckets sometimes stay in the bucket brigade when
ap_pass_brigade returns an error for the compressed data of an
earlier
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
One helpful detail, Stefan, would be if this is worker-specific or can
be reproduced with prefork. That helps narrow down the number of places
to consider your question.
This happened with prefork, Debian supports mod_php only with prefork.
As I recall, we have
Right, it is not really helpful, but as you seem to be able to reproduce
the issue can you please create a backtrace on your own, preferably with
an unstripped and -g compiled php (which doesn't seem to be the case in
the
current backtrace) .
Backtrace is attached. Looking at it again, the
Hi,
given that crypt() hashes can nowadays be brute-forced on commodity
hardware (especially since the password length is limited to 8
characters), wouldn't it make sense for htpasswd to use something stronger
by default?
Cheers,
Stefan
Right, it is not really helpful, but as you seem to be able to reproduce
the issue can you please create a backtrace on your own, preferably with
an unstripped and -g compiled php (which doesn't seem to be the case in
the
current backtrace) .
Backtrace is attached.
I forgot to mention that
Hi,
since there was some doubt that the mod_antiloris and mod_noloris
modules use the correct approach against slowloris type attacks, I
hacked up something different. mod_reqtimeout allows to set timeouts
for the reading request and reading body phases. It is implemented as
an input
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
How does it relate to the Timeout directive?
The Timeout directive sets the maximum time between two packets.
mod_requtimeout will set the socket timeout to the minumum of
{Timeout, time left for the current request}. You can set
RequestTimeout to
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Torsten Foertsch wrote:
Just a few thoughts:
- You use GLOBAL_ONLY in ap_check_cmd_context. That means the
directive must not appear in vhost context. AFAIK,
conn-base_server reflects the vhost in a pre connection hook if it
is IP-based. So, why don't you allow
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/01/2009 04:26 PM, Torsten Foertsch wrote:
On Tue 01 Sep 2009, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
http://www.sfritsch.de/mod_reqtimeout/mod_reqtimeout.c
Any comments are welcome.
Just a few thoughts:
- You use GLOBAL_ONLY
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
- Apache should respond with HTTP_REQUEST_TIME_OUT and not
HTTP_BAD_REQUEST when there is a timeout reading the request.
In the slowloris case, it needs to time out before there's any
such thing as an HTTP request, so it won't be
Hi,
it seems there are a number of configurations that used ssl
name based virtual hosts with ssl that broke with 2.2.12. A
frequent problem seems to be missing sslcertificate(key)file
directives for some of the virtual hosts. The logged error
message is not too helpful (at least if all virtual
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
I guess
reqtimeout_after_body
also needs to be updated to the assert / do nothing if not
configured logic like reqtimeout_after_headers
Thanks, I missed that. I fixed it and also added support for minimum
upload rates:
This
Hi,
in case you haven't noticed yet, some new mod_proxy_ftp issues have
been reported:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-3094
The ap_proxy_ftp_handler function in modules/proxy/proxy_ftp.c in the
mod_proxy_ftp module in the Apache HTTP Server 2.0.63 and 2.2.13
allows
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Joe Orton wrote:
+char *p = ap_strchr(reply, '('), *ep, *term;
+long port;
+
+/* Reply syntax per RFC 2428: 229 blah blah (|||port|) where '|'
+ * can be any character in ASCII from 33-126, obscurely. Verify
+ * the syntax. */
+if (p == NULL || p[1]
Hi,
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/output-filters.html
recommends to reuse bucket brigades and to not use apr_brigade_destroy.
However, both in 2.2 and in trunk, the core output filter sometimes calls
apr_brigade_destroy on brigades that it has received down the chain from
Shouldn't you also check for p[1] != 0 before p[1] != p[2], to catch the case
where reply ends after the opening bracket?
This should be p[1] == 0, of course.
Hi Rüdiger,
thanks for the response.
On Sunday 13 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/13/2009 01:11 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/output-filters.html
recommends to reuse bucket brigades and to not use
apr_brigade_destroy. However, both
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But your patch is causing core dumps during the proxy tests when
running the test suite :-(.
I currently don't understand why.
Hmmm... either ctx-tmp_flush_bb is NULL or, since it was added in the
middle of the struct, you didn't do a make distclean
On Sunday 13 September 2009, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Sunday 13 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/13/2009 01:11 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/developer/output-filters.htm
l recommends to reuse bucket brigades and to not use
apr_brigade_destroy
On Monday 28 September 2009, Dan Poirier wrote:
Is there some good reason not to log the 408's in this case?
I am +1 for logging the 408's. I also think in case of a timeout, 408
should be logged instead of 400. The attached patch does that.
--- protocol.c.orig 2009-09-05 00:36:31.448689825
Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
--- modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Revision 818232)
+++ modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -49,11 +49,11 @@
#define ASCII_CRLF \015\012
#define ASCII_ZERO \060
conn_rec *c = f-r-connection;
-
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
Cheers,
Stefan
[1] http://www.sfritsch.de/mod_reqtimeout/mod_reqtimeout.c
[2]
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477view=rev
Log:
Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created
by earlier filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be removed
causing potential memory leaks later on.
I am not
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
To be on the safe side we should do apr_brigade_cleanup(b) here.
Thanks. Fixed in r821481
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c Sun Oct 4 08:08:50
2009
@@ -392,19 +392,21 @@
}
}
+if (new_bb != NULL) {
+bb = new_bb;
+}
+
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
between bytes timeout after etc...
We've always
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
FWIW, IMO it should go in modules/filters not experimental.
+1. trunk is, by definition, experimental. But when we
float off 2.3/4-branch, we should perhaps do some documentation
of stability levels of different features and modules for users.
I
On Monday 05 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Thx... I'm updating it with an eye to making it core, and
therefore having ReqTimeout headerinit=5 headermax=10
As we also have RequestHeaders, maybe RequestTimeout would be better?
Let me know if I can help w/ the docs.
I have commited
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
Good summary.
I have taken the absence of further replies as agreement and commited
the patch to util_filter.h.
On Wednesday 07 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Does this really require a CHANGES entry??
No. There is at least one other CHANGES entry about a changed comment,
though.
On Thursday 08 October 2009, s...@apache.org wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mmn.h (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/include/ap_mmn.h Thu Oct 8 21:42:13 2009
@@ -198,15 +198,17 @@
* 20090401.3 (2.3.3-dev) Added DAV options provider to mod_dav.h
* 20090925.0 (2.3.3-dev) Added
On Friday 09 October 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* 20090925.0 (2.3.3-dev) Added server_rec::context and added *server_rec
* param to ap_wait_or_timeout()
+ * 20090925.1 (2.3.3-dev) Add optional function
ap_logio_get_last_bytes() to
+ *
On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 23 Nov 2011, at 8:22 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
This has the additional advantage of *breaking* existing
c-remote_ip references and forcing the module author to choose
which they mean for
their purposes (most would refer to the
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Wed Nov 23 15:01:42 2011
New Revision: 1205423
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1205423view=rev
Log:
Use ap_pass_brigade_fchk()
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_cache.c
Hi,
docs/icons/apache_pb2* contain the version number (2.2), in the case
of docs/icons/apache_pb2_ani.gif it's even an animation.
Any volunteers for changing these to 2.4?
Cheers,
Stefan
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Thu Nov 24 15:53:16 2011
New Revision: 1205894
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1205894view=rev
Log:
Use varargs...
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/include/util_filter.h
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/cache/mod_cache.c
On Sunday 27 November 2011, Rich Bowen wrote:
At Apachecon several of us were discussing how error messages could
be made more helpful without making them paragraphs. Two
suggestions were made - adding a URL to the message or adding a
number/code to each error that would then be looked up for
Hi,
while browsing a bit through Michael Zalewski's new Tangled Web book,
I was reminded again that we are very forgiving about what we accept
as a request. Is this really a good idea in the time of lots of web
security issues?
Examples include:
* in the request line, the protocol may be
On Monday 28 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
On 28 Nov 2011, at 00:37, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
while browsing a bit through Michael Zalewski's new Tangled Web
book, I was reminded again that we are very forgiving about what
we accept as a request. Is this really a good idea
On Sunday 13 November 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
Indeed, checking those return values would be better. May have
been lost when I separated out the i18n code from its origins in
markup filtering.
I have added some error checks and a few ap_asserts(). Do you want to
review it before I merge it into
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Igor Galić wrote:
I hope that other vendors will pick up our packaging as the
canonical way, and improve the way httpd is deployed out there.
+1
sf - how are you planning to do this, btw ;)
I think we are going to drop the separate MPM packages and build all
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/27/2011 8:34 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
At Apachecon several of us were discussing how error messages
could be made more helpful without making them paragraphs. Two
suggestions were made - adding a URL to the message or adding a
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote:
On 23.11.2011 15:06, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:37:31AM +0100, Kaspar Brand wrote:
There are two approaches to fix 1): a) turn off verify_hostname
where needed (t/ssl/pr12355.t and t/ssl/pr43738.t are doing this
right now)
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I've noticed some warnings in mod_xml2enc:
mod_xml2enc.c: In function 'fix_skipto':
mod_xml2enc.c:123:18: warning: variable 'rv' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable] mod_xml2enc.c: In function
'sniff_encoding':
On Monday 28 November 2011, Rich Bowen wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
A question on procedure: Do you want to add all error codes at
once and then fill in the descriptions or add the error codes as
the documentation evolves? If the former, some scripting would
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Currently my scripts produces:
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.list
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Mikhail T. wrote:
On 29.11.2011 23:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
But my point remains, that we allocate each module a block of
some 50 codes, such that mod_aaa gets AHM-0049 and mod_aab
gets 50-99, etc.
How will 3rd-party modules be getting their
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Tim Bannister wrote:
On 27 Nov 2011, at 17:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we
should use a distinct prefix or format. We currently have around
2700 calls to *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out
ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that
emits them.
From my experience, any attempt at
On Friday 02 December 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Dec 2011, at 12:42 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Fri Dec 2 22:42:39 2011
New Revision: 1209754
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1209754view=rev
Log:
mod_proxy: Make ap_proxy_retry_worker() into
On Thursday 01 December 2011, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Any more comments/thoughts?
As nobody disagreed, this is now in trunk. I intend to commit it to
2.4 tomorrow.
It's already a big step forward and the finishing touches can be done
in 2.4.1.
Hi,
where are we WRT 2.4?
Blockers:
mod_proxy_scgi.c needs to be fixed for compilation with C89 (easy)
The only blocker left in STATUS is this:
* Modules that are not ready for production use must be removed.
The same for modules without documentation.
I think we have already removed
On Saturday 03 December 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 12/3/2011 1:32 AM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
On 12/2/2011 3:48 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
- the follwing modules added since 2.2 lack documentation
- mod_socache_dbm
- mod_socache_memcache
- mod_socache_shmcb
On Saturday 03 December 2011, Nick Kew wrote:
On 2 Dec 2011, at 23:19, s...@apache.org wrote:
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/ap_mmn.h
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/include/http_log.h
[...]
+ * 20111202.1 (2.5.0-dev) add APLOGNO()
2.4 or 2.5?
Changed it to 2.4. I
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
There seems to be a lot of renewed effort in getting 2.4/trunk is a
really releasable state, which is all Goodness. Ideally, I'd like
to release 2.4.0 before the end of the year, but starting off
2012 with a new httpd release also makes some sense as
mod_slotmem_plain plain
mod_slotmem_shm shared !
mod_socache_dbm dbm
mod_socache_dc dc
mod_socache_memcachemc !
mod_socache_shmcb shmcb
Should we align the provider names with the module names? E.g. change
shared to shm and mc to memcache?
On Sunday 04 December 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I also
need to look at the event changes as well in trunk to see if
they are in 2.4.0 as well (or if they are something we could
easily add post 2.4.0)...
The event changes in trunk are not ready for 2.4, see
On Wednesday 07 December 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote:
These changes aren't doing the right thing, I think... both
ssl_log_ssl_error() and ssl_log_cert_error() are basically wrappers
for ap_log_*(), and are therefore called from various places in
mod_ssl - i.e. the messages triggering them should
On Sunday 11 December 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
My plan is to TR sometime this week...
+1.
BTW, is there
On Tuesday 13 December 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Stefan,
Am 05.12.2011 10:38, schrieb s...@apache.org:
Author: sf
Date: Mon Dec 5 09:38:44 2011
New Revision: 1210378
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1210378view=rev
Log:
Fix a few compiler warning reported by Steffen:
On Thursday 15 December 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download at
test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as 2.3.16-beta BETA and,
with luck, this IS our last beta and the next release in
Hi Steffen,
On Saturday 17 December 2011, Steffen wrote:
Here the Win64 warnings attached.
Quite a lot, 442.
Most of these are conversions between various integer types. I think
the majority of these are in fact correct code. It would be quite a
lot of worth to fix these and I am not sure
On Sunday 18 December 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The 2.3.16-beta (prerelease) tarballs are available for download
at
test:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Greg Ames wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:26 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
We should come to a conclusion on this.
How about this for 2.2.x ?
--- server/util.c (revision 1179624)
+++ server/util.c (working copy)
@@ -82,6 +82,8 @@
Hi,
Author: sf
Date: Wed Dec 28 14:54:49 2011
New Revision: 1225199
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225199view=rev
Log:
Check during configtest that the directories for error logs exist
Testing under Windows is welcome
PR: 29941
I think that the combination of
On Wednesday 28 December 2011, Rüdiger Plüm wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Wed Dec 28 14:54:49 2011
New Revision: 1225199
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1225199view=rev
Log:
Check during configtest that the directories for error logs exist
Testing under Windows is welcome
PR: 29941
On Wednesday 28 December 2011, Mario Brandt wrote:
I guess it is now r1225223 ?
Yes, r1225199 plus r1225223.
On Wednesday 28 December 2011, Mario Brandt wrote:
Since 2.3.? there is this nice overview table in the server-status
page. http://www.images-hack.de/bild.php/15079,statusKCQ3G.png
Since it shows the status for apache working with threads. Why I
see that only with event mpm, and not with
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Steffen wrote:
What I noticed, it is connecting to a port by a formerly used
proxied connection (port 7080 instead of 81);
Summary log:
[proxy:debug] [pid 8680:tid 2668] proxy_util.c(2140): proxy: HTTP:
has acquired connection for (*)
[proxy:debug] [pid
On Monday 02 January 2012, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Henri Yandell (Created) (JIRA) wrote on Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at
06:03:30 +:
Note list name on mail detail page
--
Key: INFRA-4238
URL:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2012, Eric Covener wrote:
Can anyone more familiar with the code verify this? Steffen, maybe you
can try the change and see if it helps?
I think there are a few additional wrinkles -- I couldn't repro after
this but no confident about what's right with the addr handling:
1 - 100 of 894 matches
Mail list logo
