On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 07 Feb 2018, at 8:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> 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. > > IIRC, it's just for mod_status output. Nothing programmatic.
As an external representation - if mod_status is compiled against 2.4.29, will it crash with this backport?
