Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:57:54AM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > > Wouldn't a hook for opening the htaccess file make more sense because > > it would have more possible use cases? Then modules could use this > > hook to find htaccess files somewhere else, generate/extend/filter > > them on the fly, etc. For example: > > Either way is fine by me; the only thing mpm-itk needs is really DECLINED > or exit(). :-) > Do you have time to test with this patch on top of 2.4.x and report back? http://people.apache.org/~sf/open_htaccess_hook.patch Thanks! > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:53:03AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Do you have time to test with this patch on top of 2.4.x and report back?
>
> http://people.apache.org/~sf/open_htaccess_hook.patch
Hi,
I've tried this, adjusted mpm-itk, and it seems to work. Why do I need to
return AP_DECLINED and not DECLINED from this hook, though?
FWIW, here's my hook:
ap_hook_open_htaccess(itk_open_htaccess, NULL, NULL, APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST);
[...]
static apr_status_t itk_open_htaccess(request_rec *r,
const char *dir_name, const char
*access_name,
ap_configfile_t **conffile, const
char **full_name)
{
int status;
if (!ap_has_irreversibly_setuid || r->main != NULL) {
return AP_DECLINED;
}
*full_name = ap_make_full_path(r->pool, dir_name, access_name);
status = ap_pcfg_openfile(conffile, r->pool, *full_name);
if (APR_STATUS_IS_EACCES(status)) {
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING, errno, r,
"Couldn't read %s, closing connection.",
*full_name);
ap_lingering_close(r->connection);
exit(0);
}
return status;
}
I don't like all that much having to duplicate the “official” hook
(in particular the ap_make_full_path() call), but I guess it's better than
what used to be there, and it's only two lines.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On 10.07.2013 13:14, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:53:03AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> Do you have time to test with this patch on top of 2.4.x and report back? >> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/open_htaccess_hook.patch > > Hi, > > I've tried this, adjusted mpm-itk, and it seems to work. Why do I need to > return AP_DECLINED and not DECLINED from this hook, though? http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201307.mbox/%3calpine.deb.2.00.1307031352000.14...@eru.sfritsch.de%3E Regards, Rainer
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > I don't like all that much having to duplicate the “official” hook > (in particular the ap_make_full_path() call), but I guess it's > better than what used to be there, and it's only two lines. Yes, that's the price to pay for the more flexible hook which supports additional use cases. I think these two lines are acceptable. Cheers, Stefan
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Wednesday 10 July 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > I don't like all that much having to duplicate the “official” hook > > (in particular the ap_make_full_path() call), but I guess it's > > better than what used to be there, and it's only two lines. > > Yes, that's the price to pay for the more flexible hook which supports > additional use cases. I think these two lines are acceptable. > I think this issue was the original objection to solving the problem with this particular API (voiced or unvoiced), but I agree that the additional use cases make it worthwhile. I guess "it seems to work" in the earlier e-mail is the validation that the API is sufficient for MPM-ITK. > Cheers, > Stefan > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:07:56PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > I guess "it seems to work" in the earlier e-mail is the validation that the > API is sufficient for MPM-ITK. Hi, I see that 2.4.6 has been released, with no mention of open_htaccess in the source code. Was this reverted after 2.4.5? Or was it simply never applied to the 2.4.x branch? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
Am Montag, 22. Juli 2013, 19:58:11 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:07:56PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > I guess "it seems to work" in the earlier e-mail is the validation > > that the API is sufficient for MPM-ITK. > I see that 2.4.6 has been released, with no mention of open_htaccess > in the source code. Was this reverted after 2.4.5? Or was it simply > never applied to the 2.4.x branch? Unfortunately, it didn't get the necessary three +1 votes in time and hasn't been applied to the 2.4.x branch, yet.
Re: Hey Steinar... Re: Revisiting the pre_htaccess hook
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > Am Montag, 22. Juli 2013, 19:58:11 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:07:56PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > I guess "it seems to work" in the earlier e-mail is the validation > > > that the API is sufficient for MPM-ITK. > > > > I see that 2.4.6 has been released, with no mention of open_htaccess > > in the source code. Was this reverted after 2.4.5? Or was it simply > > never applied to the 2.4.x branch? > > Unfortunately, it didn't get the necessary three +1 votes in time and > hasn't been applied to the 2.4.x branch, yet. > > Now it is approved for 2.4.next. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
