On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:

> On May 29, 2016 01:02, "Jie Gao" <j....@sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > I wonder if anybody is looking at this issue. At the moment, the build
> cores even at the end of generating a Makefile.
> >
> > If not, I would like to get my hands dirty in an attmpt to get the ball
> rolling. Any help on how to get a handle on the "ip comparisons"
> recommended by W. Rowe Jr would be much appreciated.
>
> Hi Jie,
>
> At the moment, I'm still on the fence of whether this is a supportable use
> case (in the faux-handler for the modperl alt protocol example.)
>
> If it is not, the fix is to drop the test from modperl.
>

Alternately, the test could be fixed, but that is non-trivial...

A non-request oriented alt protocol simply never examines the req_rec,
and must not use request oriented modules like auth.  That should be
pretty obvious.

To create a pseudo -request- handler, you would have your connection
hook handler populate the appropriate fields and insert the appropriate
protocol-specific input and output filters below the request/body filters
and run the request through the rest of the phases, performing the
auth validation at the appropriate phase of the request (post_read
would be one obvious choice.)

Otherwise, the fix is also straightforward, I can provide hints, but you
> can cause the fault by changing the domain name in the test case config
> from example 'hostname' to example 'ip addr'.  The offending code is in the
> backtrace.  Both ip and host lookups would test if the useragent_addr is
> null, and use the corresponding lookups from the conn_rec.
>
> I sort of expect the modperl test to continue to be broken because the
> req_rec simply has not been fully initialized... it is not until the entire
> read_req hook phase is complete that all these req_rec field members have
> meaningful values.
>
> But if enough folks agree we can fix the lookup to refer to the conn_rec
> values until useragent_addr is initialized.
>

Reply via email to