On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 10:06, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > So, on EOF on the input, we should look at the outstanding requests (say > > off at the DC, awaiting a response) and wait for them to complete before > > shutting down the helper? > > Correct. The EOF on input currently just says there won't be any > additional requests send by Squid, but any yet unanswered requests already > received by the helper still need to be answered. > > Thinking about it we could just as well define EOF to mean "quit now", and > make Squid delay the EOF signal until it has seen responses to all pending > requests. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but the delayed EOF > should make life considerably easier in the helper implementations which > is a real good thing. For Squid it is trivial.
This would make my job a lot easier, and I suspect most implementations would have a much better chance of getting it right. > Opinions? > > If not I'll redefine the protocol to have EOF to the helper mean "shut > down immediately" to simplify the helper implementations and provide > quicker shutdown causing pending helper requests to be aborted on > shutdown. > > Or in other words, if a helper sees EOF it should exit unconditionally. exit(0) is easy to implement :-) > In most helpers reading one request at a time using fgets then this is > hidden by the libc, but advanced (or in some cases stupid) helpers reading > their requests by other methods need to be careful to do it correctly or > they may risk corrupting the request stream. Samba's ntlm_auth just uses fgets(), because I based it on the original winbind helper from squid. So my life is easy :-) Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
