On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 16:28 >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> Betreff: Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on >> Windows. >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group >> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com] >> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 16:07 >> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org >> >> Betreff: Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on >> >> Windows. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This looks like there is a stray \n in the input queue that causes >> >> httpd to think that there is a pipelined request. >> >> >> >> I think we should tolerate blank lines in check_pipeline(), like >> >> read_request_line() does (this is also a RFC compliance). >> >> >> >> How about the following patch? >> > >> > In general this looks good, but why not moving the max_blank_lines >> logic >> > into check_pipeline using c->server->limit_req_fields, so that we do >> not need to change >> > its prototype? >> >> Hmm, check_pipeline() is static, why bother? >> Also c->base_server may be different than r->server (after the first >> request), and we probably want to use the value from the last >> request's vhost (a bit like we did already for keep_alive_timeout). >> > > OK. Fair enough.
OK, thanks :) Andy, can you give the proposed patch a try?
