Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
FYI, I also floated a few patches here that apply directly to 2.4.6 which includes the (many) proposed 2.4.7 patches. -- Daniel Ruggeri On 1/21/2014 8:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > Hi, > > please have a look at > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c19 where a > patch is available against 2.4.7 (or 2.4.x). > > This is the same as the original > http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch (proposed but not > integrated into 2.4.7), but this one applies with no error against > current 2.4.7 or 2.4.x sources. > > Regards, > Yann.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Hi, please have a look at https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c19 where a patch is available against 2.4.7 (or 2.4.x). This is the same as the original http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch (proposed but not integrated into 2.4.7), but this one applies with no error against current 2.4.7 or 2.4.x sources. Regards, Yann. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Yonah Russ wrote: > Hi, > > We're really interested in getting the UDS support in 2.4.8. > If someone could put together a tarball for us to test, we would be happy to > do so. > > Thanks, > Yonah > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >> >> On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> > nuff said :) >> >> One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could >> spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW. >> >> -- >> Daniel Ruggeri >> >
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Hi, We're really interested in getting the UDS support in 2.4.8. If someone could put together a tarball for us to test, we would be happy to do so. Thanks, Yonah On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > nuff said :) > > One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could > spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW. > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > >
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Also PR 55666, patches starting with https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666#c12 have not been reviewed/commited yet. It's about mod_deflate input/output filters to be reentrant when parsing zlib header, so to avoid "Zlib: Invalid header" or "Insufficient data for inflate". Regards.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Helo, could http://svn.apache.org/r1538776 be considered for backport too (PR 55475)? It's about mod_proxy to detect/handle incomplete (interrupted) backend responses. Regards, Yann.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 14:15 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > I can certainly apply and propose for back port the defect fixes, this > week. > > Those which change the configured behavior in an unexpected way are no > longer easy fits on 2.2 or 2.4, and need further discussion about > their Anything that changes a currently configured and expected behaviour, IMO should not even be contemplated for a stable release - until 2.6.x series. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
I can certainly apply and propose for back port the defect fixes, this week. Those which change the configured behavior in an unexpected way are no longer easy fits on 2.2 or 2.4, and need further discussion about their urgency here on list. It would also be good to leave enhancements on trunk/ for the time being to allow for additional review. Give me into the weekend to get these all sorted and a subset of them closed, unless someone is eager to beat me to them. On Jan 9, 2014 10:06 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :) > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph wrote: > > > Hello Jim, > > > > I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple > of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8. > > > > If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache > httpd 2.4.8, > > then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering: > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651 > >- This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first > presented over a year ago. > >- This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process > RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses. > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972 > >- This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while > studying mod_remoteip.c. > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962 > >- This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe > Jr. > >- This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some > unlikely use cases. > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886 > >- This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the > client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic. > > > > I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike Rumph > > > > > > > > On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> "defect"? > >> > >> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. > >> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". > >> > >> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, > >> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any > >> reason to not include it where we say it is, and > >> where we see it works. > >> > >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 > >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: > >>> > On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr > wrote: > > So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being > > valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) > > at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: > > > Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, > and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and > currently isn't supported. > > I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) > >>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into > >>> a release branch. > >>> > >>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? > >>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users? > >>> > >> > > > >
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :) On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph wrote: > Hello Jim, > > I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple of > replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8. > > If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache httpd > 2.4.8, > then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering: > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651 >- This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first > presented over a year ago. >- This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process > RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972 >- This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while > studying mod_remoteip.c. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962 >- This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr. >- This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some unlikely > use cases. > > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886 >- This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the client > field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic. > > I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here. > > Thanks, > > Mike Rumph > > > > On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> "defect"? >> >> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. >> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". >> >> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, >> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any >> reason to not include it where we say it is, and >> where we see it works. >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: > So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being > valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) > at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: > Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and currently isn't supported. I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) >>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into >>> a release branch. >>> >>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? >>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users? >>> >> >
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Hello Jim, I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8. If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache httpd 2.4.8, then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering: - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651 - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first presented over a year ago. - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses. - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972 - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while studying mod_remoteip.c. - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962 - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr. - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some unlikely use cases. - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886 - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic. I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here. Thanks, Mike Rumph On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: "defect"? We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any reason to not include it where we say it is, and where we see it works. On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 Jim Jagielski wrote: On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and currently isn't supported. I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into a release branch. Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
"defect"? We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite. Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect". If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite, then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any reason to not include it where we say it is, and where we see it works. On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: >>> >>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being >>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) >>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: >>> >> >> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, >> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and >> currently isn't supported. >> >> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) > > No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into > a release branch. > > Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? > Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users? >
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500 Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: > > > > So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being > > valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) > > at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: > > > > Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, > and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and > currently isn't supported. > > I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;) No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into a release branch. Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag? Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr wrote: > > So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being valid. I > temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) at > mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly: > Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy, and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and currently isn't supported. I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could
> spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW.
I tried the UDS patch in httpd trunk with mod_proxy_fcgi and PHP-FPM,
and ProxyPass is working nicely now. I used the following config:
ProxyPass unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://PHP1${DOCROOT}
One thing worth pointing out is that some unique dummy hostname, such
as that "PHP1" in the above example, is required after the real
scheme. It might be tempting to pick "localhost", but that would
result in problems when using multiple sockets.
Next I tried using UDS with mod_rewrite, but I couldn't get that to
work. Using this config:
RewriteRule /php-info
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://${DOCROOT}/ppp/info.php [P,L]
with this URL:
http://localhost:8000/php-info
I got a 404. Turning on tracing for mod_rewrite:
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653655 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] rewrite '/php-info'
->
'unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php'
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653672 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] forcing
proxy-throughput with
http://localhost:8000/unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653702 2014] [rewrite:trace1] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] go-ahead with proxy
request
proxy:http://localhost:8000/unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[OK]
So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being valid. I
temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) at
mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758212 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] rewrite '/php-info'
->
'unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php'
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758226 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] forcing
proxy-throughput with
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758253 2014] [rewrite:trace1] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] go-ahead with proxy
request
proxy:unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[OK]
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758379 2014] [proxy:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] proxy_util.c(1932): [client ::1:50308] *: found
reverse proxy worker for
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758392 2014] [proxy:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy.c(1138): [client ::1:50308] AH01143:
Running scheme unix handler (attempt 0)
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758403 2014] [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(770): [client ::1:50308] AH01076:
url:
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
proxyname: (null) proxyport: 0
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758411 2014] [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(773): [client ::1:50308] AH01077:
declining URL
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758418 2014] [proxy:warn] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] [client ::1:50308] AH01144: No protocol handler was
valid for the URL /php-info. If you are using a DSO version of
mod_proxy, make sure the proxy submodules are included in the
configuration using LoadModule.
but this results in a 500. It looks like mod_proxy is not ready for a
UDS URI in r->filename when it was set by some other module earlier in
the request.
--
Blaise
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > nuff said :) One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW. -- Daniel Ruggeri
