Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:22:28PM +0200, Peter Sylvester wrote:
The patch for 724717 moves some logic from ssl_engine_kernel into
ssl__engine_vars and simplifies the code (and enhances it btw).
Can this code be backported to the 2.2.x version
Have you done any testing on that? I hadn't done much beyond running
the test suite, IIRC.
I think you want to know whether the code does not extract
differently than the other one? I.e. the subset is identical
including all errors? :-)
Can you point me to the test suites? TIA
The enhancement is to add the "_n" suffix for multiple occurences
of attributs which seems good. in addition it concentrates logic
at one place ...
... almost. Wouldn't it be better to move the for loop in the
following snippet of ssl_engine_kernel (and the ssl_hoolFixup_vars
table also inside the the routine above (changing maybe its name).
That separation was deliberate - the modssl_var_extract_dns() function
purely handles the DN extraction - the rest of the variables are
unrelated to the DN handling. I don't see that's a big issue.
I understand that modssl_var_extract_dns is for the dns.
That's why I mentioned another name like let's say:
modssl_var_extract.
Thesis/antithesis:
If one wants to add whatever new variable, it requires
modification of kernel and vars. you need the code in
vars, and piloting via the table in kernel. One can argue
in favour of that or the contrary.
I'd prefer to have a code that calls just one function in
vars so instead of
if (dc->nOptions & SSL_OPT_STDENVVARS) {
modssl_var_extract_dns(env, sslconn->ssl, r->pool);
for (i = 0; ssl_hook_Fixup_vars[i]; i++) {
var = (char *)ssl_hook_Fixup_vars[i];
val = ssl_var_lookup(r->pool, r->server, r->connection, r, var);
if (!strIsEmpty(val)) {
apr_table_setn(env, var, val);
}
}
}
one would have for example
if (dc->nOptions & SSL_OPT_STDENVVARS)
modssl_var_extract(env, sslconn->ssl, r->pool);
or even
modssl_var_extract(env, sslconn->ssl, r->pool, dc->nOptions);
and let the function decide what to do.
(or with dc or whatever parameter that would be the most convenient)
regards
