On 13/05/17 01:12, Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
On 12.05.2017 07:54, Amos Jeffries wrote:
The other access lists which obviously treat non-allowed as denied
are very recent additions. So using them as a template to re-write
existing and widely used directives behaviour is not great.
Frankly speaking, the "cache" directive behavior changed rather
recently (r14984), as I noted above. Can we say that it became
'widely' used
since then? On the contrary, I suspect that this change broke (or
eventually
will break) some existing installations.
That r14984 was itself carefully designed to _revert_ unintentional side
effects hostVerify had on cache directive behaviour. Your patch is
reverting those DUNNO occurances back to the code which had many, many
complaints.
I so, the only "miss_access" directive check change may
break some installations. Should we make an exception for this single
directive or formalize the rules, making them identical for all
directives?
Probably the latter would be better for long term. We can postpone
this change
of course, adding a warning message for admin, that
'dunno' or 'auth required' outcomes will be denied in future releases.
For cache there is the deprecation I mentioned.
For miss_access there is
<http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528>, Squid-2 miss_access
is a slow/async lookup.
Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
