Hi,

The directive AddOutputFilterByType can be used to insert filters to the output filter chain depending on the content type of the HTTP response. So far so good.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

I observed that the behavior of this directive changed in Apache 2.4 for filters. Starting with Apache 2.4 filters are inserted at an earlier place in the filter chain than they were inserted with Apache 2.2. For example, if you use the directive

    AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html

The filter is inserted with AP_FTYPE_RESOURCE, even though it was registered in mod_deflate.c as AP_FTYPE_SET_CONTENT. The effect is that using "AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html" the resulting filter chain is ordered diferrently compared to using "SetOutputFilter DEFLATE".

This can be fixed in configuration by adding the following directive right after AddOutputFilterByType:

    FilterDeclare BYTYPE:DEFLATE CONTENT_SET

Unfortunately the order and placement of FilterDeclare seems to be relevant, i.e. this fix only works if FilterDeclare comes *after* AddOutputFilterByType within the same container.

I wonder whether this is an intentional behavior change of AddOutputFilterByType or not.

ANALYSIS

Apparently the filter type (ap_filter_rec_t struct member ftype) of the filter provider isn't respected anymore.

The intended filter type is provided when registering the output filter by calling ap_register_output_filter(). In branch 2.2.x this was sufficient, because the conditional filter (based on the MIME type) was added directly by name (i.e. by calling ap_add_output_filter() in ap_add_output_filters_by_type). In branches 2.4.x and trunk the implementation of AddOutputFilterByType apparently moved to mod_filter and a layer of indirection (the filter harness) is introduced. But the filter harness is apparently created unconditionally with AP_FTYPE_RESOURCE.

FIX APPROACH

When implicitly creating a filter harness by calling the function add_filter(), we have access to the provider's ap_filter_rec_t anyways. So I recommend to just copy it from the filter provider (e.g. DEFLATE) to the filter harness (e.g. BYTYPE:DEFLATE).

I've tested this approach with the patch below for a setup without any FilterDeclare directive, and it fixed the regression; the DEFLATE filter was ordered correctly at AP_FTYPE_CONTENT_SET again.

--------------------- 8>< --------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/modules/filters/mod_filter.c b/modules/filters/mod_filter.c
index 7b69223..5b5ecf6 100644
--- a/modules/filters/mod_filter.c
+++ b/modules/filters/mod_filter.c
@@ -444,6 +444,12 @@ static const char *add_filter(cmd_parms *cmd, void *CFG,
     ap_expr_info_t *node;
     const char *err = NULL;

+    /* if provider has been registered, we can look it up */
+    provider_frec = ap_get_output_filter_handle(pname);
+    if (!provider_frec) {
+ return apr_psprintf(cmd->pool, "Unknown filter provider %s", pname);
+    }
+
/* fname has been declared with DeclareFilter, so we can look it up */
     frec = apr_hash_get(cfg->live_filters, fname, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);

@@ -454,17 +460,13 @@ static const char *add_filter(cmd_parms *cmd, void *CFG,
             return c;
         }
frec = apr_hash_get(cfg->live_filters, fname, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);
+        frec->ftype = provider_frec->ftype;
     }

     if (!frec) {
return apr_psprintf(cmd->pool, "Undeclared smart filter %s", fname);
     }

-    /* if provider has been registered, we can look it up */
-    provider_frec = ap_get_output_filter_handle(pname);
-    if (!provider_frec) {
- return apr_psprintf(cmd->pool, "Unknown filter provider %s", pname);
-    }
     provider = apr_palloc(cmd->pool, sizeof(ap_filter_provider_t));
     if (expr) {
         node = ap_expr_parse_cmd(cmd, expr, 0, &err, NULL);
--------------------- 8>< --------------------------------------------------

For setups with both, FilterDeclare and AddOutputFilterByType (as described above as fix), I observed some issues with properly merging the two filter harnesses. However, I have no clue what semantics the original author wanted to have in this situation.

I hope my explanations are clear enough for others to follows. If not, please don't hesitate to ask.

Best regards,
Micha

Reply via email to