Committed something with explanations (hopefully) in r1812193. Does it sound good?
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > I will review again tomorrow. > > My jump-around idea was to check against all of the bits in not dir loc > file, and if the module's MMN minor is too early, treat the <Proxy > section > as if that bit is set. > > > > On Oct 11, 2017 16:13, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thus, how about if there, for 2.4.x only (i.e. backport patch), we'd >>>> instead check for: >>>>> + || (((forbidden & NOT_IN_PROXY) >>>>> + || (forbidden & NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE) == >>>>> NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE >>>>> + || (forbidden & GLOBAL_ONLY) == GLOBAL_ONLY) >>>>> + && ((found = ...) >>>>> + || ...))) >>>> ? >>> >>> Looks like there are other usages of NOT_IN_DIR_LOC_FILE we should >>> hack in ap_check_cmd_context() too, but you probably see the idea... >> >> Actually, I think the correct fix, even for 2.5/trunk, is something >> for the attached patch. >> WDYT? > > Sorry, spoke^R patched too soon, this v2 is more correct I guess. > >
