At 09:53 AM 3/20/2003, you wrote: >On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:18:12PM -0600, William Rowe wrote: >> Thanks to the feedback from Joe and Bjoern, I have committed a ton and 1/2 >> of bug fixes to apr's open.c and dupfile.c. >> >> After those changes, this patch is much easier to read. Please take a look >> and comment on anything you see that might be amiss. > >It has two compile failures on Unix, so can I presume you haven't tested >this in httpd on a Unix platform?
ACK. I'm in the process of testing the current trees and have already received confirmation from Bjoern that with the apr fixes *already* in the apr tree, plus the patch you reposted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] leaves us no further open fd's beyond 0,1,2 when invoking CGI scripts. That confirmation (I've asked him to fw: to the httpd list) gives me enough confidence to call 0.9.2 ready - subject to tagging, testing, tarring and the final +1's for release. Of course Netware and OS2 should also be reviewed for the correct behavior - but we've already got the 80/20 problem licked, and I'm unaware of any mass-vhosters using Netware or OS2 to invoke untrusted CGIs. If Netware or OS2 have any inheritance bug fixes, we can pick those up on the word of those platform maintainers later tonight/tommorow morning. Bill
