> Am 11.07.2016 um 17:38 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stefan Eissing > <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: > In https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59840 the issue crept up > that StdEnvVars makes concurrent access to the SSL context when HTTP/2 is in > place. > > The question is: how do we want to fix this? > > The general theme is that a module needs to perform some action on a > connection, sees that it is a slave connection and accesses the master > instead. Such a module needs to be aware that access to master may happen in > parallel with other request. > > Should we let each such module care for it on its own or do we want to > provide a way to access the master connection in a mutex protected way? > > Rather than a mutex, which would become an issue because all master access > to the context would require blocking, is there a way we can allow a module to > perform its (hopefully swift) processing on the master thread? Send a metadata > bucket to the master asking for a function to be invoked?
Hmm, interesting idea. Of course, there would still be a mutex involved in handling such a query, but maybe it can be done more elegant than mutexing all accesses to structures everywhere. One way to look at this is that information retrieval from slave to master is something like a GET and that information injection into the master conn is something like a POST. So, effectively (and not necessarily in HTTP wire format), a slave connection would to a GET /ssl/StdEnvVars to retrieve the map. Which would, the first time, get added to the incoming queue on the master thread, be answered, slave thread awoken again and processing continues. This would be cached for future queries, so that slaves can access it without being put to sleep. We could use our famous HOOK infrastructure so that modules can register their own handlers for such information. We'd only need to nail down the general semantics and the data format for interchange. Something like a const apr_table_t would probably work. It would need to be readonly and allow concurrent use. -Stefan
