On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: >>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h (original) >>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h Wed Apr 11 19:11:52 2018 >>> @@ -459,6 +459,8 @@ typedef struct { >>> char secret[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SECRET_SIZE]; /* authentication >>> secret (e.g. AJP13) */ >>> char upgrade[PROXY_WORKER_MAX_SCHEME_SIZE];/* upgrade protocol >>> used by mod_proxy_wstunnel */ >>> char hostname_ex[PROXY_RFC1035_HOSTNAME_SIZE]; /* RFC1035 >>> compliant version of the remote backend address */ >>> + apr_size_t response_field_size; /* Size of proxy response buffer in >>> bytes. */ >>> + unsigned int response_field_size_set:1; >>> } proxy_worker_shared; >> >> >> If this is for trunk only, should I move the bit field up and call it >> major? I don't plan to backport it. > > Maybe the backport is needed to resolve PR 62196 altogether?
Scratch that, this commit doesn't fix the case where '\n' is within the ENOSPC brigade but only comments on the issue.
