On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
> So long as other mod_proxy_* compiled against 2.4.29 do not crash, then no > - it is doesn't seem we established an ABI contract. The pairing of > httpd-2.4.30 > and the 2.4.30 mod_proxy_balancer are obviously in-sync. Digging through the code, the struct proxy_worker_shared is used by the ap_proxy_share_worker() and ap_proxy_find_workershm() both declared in proxy_util.c and therefore mod_proxy.so. The only user of these two functions is mod_proxy_balancer - so this looks safe as per your definition above. We need to document whether the name, scheme and hostname fields in proxy_worker_shared are intended for debugging purposes only (ie logging, status, errors) and are therefore safe to truncate or whether they can be used programmatically. I don’t see anything in mod_proxy_balancer that references these fields. Regards, Graham —
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
