well, since I know andre is paying attention, I thought I'd start with
mod_include :)
ok, I made some adjustments to t/modules/include.t to accommodate 1.3, 2.0,
and 2.1. hopefully, all I did was shuffle things around so that it's easier
to keep track of the three cases: proper behavior,
Geoffrey Young wrote:
well, since I know andre is paying attention, I thought I'd start with
mod_include :)
ok, I made some adjustments to t/modules/include.t to accommodate 1.3, 2.0,
and 2.1. hopefully, all I did was shuffle things around so that it's easier
to keep track of the three cases:
Just to add to the concern Bill has voiced, there is a risk of fixing
testing here. You see that the sub-tests have failed only if you run in
the verbose mode. Most people won't do that, and will miss those
failures, thinking that everything is proper.
hmm, what gives you that impression?
hi all
t/apache/limits.t has one failure on Apache 1.3 - a chunked body that
exceeds the limits. 2.0/2.1 returns 413 (entity too large) while 1.3
returns 400 (bad request).
after looking at the code in 1.3 I think this is intentional -
ap_get_client_block specifically handles this condition,
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Just to add to the concern Bill has voiced, there is a risk of fixing
testing here. You see that the sub-tests have failed only if you run in
the verbose mode. Most people won't do that, and will miss those
failures, thinking that everything is proper.
hmm, what gives you
* Geoffrey Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, since I know andre is paying attention, I thought I'd start with
mod_include :)
heh ;-)
the only place I'm a bit confused is the flastmod/fsize test, which is
marked as TODO currently but is unexpectedly passing in 2.0/2.1. the
comments make
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing.
Backport it for chrissakes.
amen.
The process requires getting 3 +1s. Anywhere (list, irc, phonecall, STATUS) is
okay. I assume what you meant was that you
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:29, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing.
Backport it for chrissakes.
amen.
The process requires getting 3 +1s. Anywhere (list, irc,
Hi,
Here is a little patch, fixing the ldap cache using shared memory.
After the fix for plateform using SHM or not, it was a problem with
cache init, unable to get it's rmm address to alloc memory.
I modified the cache alloc for the two cases, with and without SHM, now
not using more
Title: [PATCH] mod_cache RFC compliance
Hello
everyone,
I
reported a few months ago a problem concerning mod_cachenot sending a
"If-Modified-Since" when the cache is staled (see the end of my e-mail below).
At that time Iproposed a patch against 2.0.47 but Paul J. Reder answered
me it was
Sander Striker wrote:
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:29, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Greg Stein wrote:
This is where process gets in the way of just doing the right thing.
Backport it for chrissakes.
amen.
The process requires getting 3 +1s. Anywhere (list, irc,
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 13:33, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
The process requires getting 3 +1s. Anywhere (list, irc, phonecall, STATUS) is
okay.
No, recorded +1s are okay, this brings it down to list and STATUS.
Ofcourse to summarize on list that there was support by X
The only thing I don't understand is why this went from:- queue_clock - mobj-total_refsto:queue_clock - mobj-total_refsWhen the other case negated the whole statement. Is this intentional ordid you forget to account for the - in this case being distributed acrossthe ()'s?
If you look at the
Thomas,
Sorry for the delay, other work ended up calling me away. This is
still on my work list. I'm hoping to get back into it this week.
I do have a couple of concerns with the patch as it currently exists.
Things like looking for Etag and Last-Modified in only one of the
*headers_out
Jeff Trawick wrote:
(Lots of structures aren't arranged to minimize or make available for
future use the inevitable padding, but the scoreboard is one where we
potentally have a great number of them in shared memory and also where
changing the size of the structure can break some modules.)
Title: RE: mod_cache not sending If-Modified-Since headers
OK Paul ! Take your time anyway, I think this version is good enough to be implemented in our production environment...
Thanks again,
Thomas.
-Message d'origine-
De : Paul J. Reder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé :
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:24:38AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2003/12/10 05:43:14
Modified:server main.c
Log:
* server/main.c (suck_in_expat): Remove function, USE_EXPAT is never
defined.
Does anyone have clues about the other hacks
Or even better:
mod_include: Options +Includes (or IncludesNoExec) wasn't set, removing
include filter.
Paul E Wilt
Senior Principal Software Engineer
ProQuest Information and Learning
-
http://www.proquest.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
In any case, I think that all 2.0 patches deserve explicit eyeballing,
no matter how trivial.
Fine...
I agree that the whole STATUS route is totally
overkill for trivial patches as these.
/that/ is what I meant. :-)
--JC
Marc Giger wrote:
I'm not sure but I think there is a bug in the sdbm module.
The same code runs fine on intel hardware but not on my alpha.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the proper mailing list for apr and apr-util discussions.
I found this by running subversion which calls apr_dbm_* and like
Ian Holsman wrote:
this commit reminds me..
weren't we going to do something similiar to this in 2.1 for the default
file handler? (replace the 'stat' with a 'fstat')
Will .. do you remember the whole details? it was something about
putting the handle into the request_rec or something
I think
Wilt, Paul wrote:
Or even better:
mod_include: Options +Includes (or IncludesNoExec) wasn't set, removing
include filter.
Thanks Paul, but I've already committed and backported this wording:
mod_include: Options +Includes (or IncludesNoExec) wasn't set, INCLUDES
filter removed
so if anybody
Larry Toppi wrote:
I found the culprit. The EOS bucket was being removed from the brigade
but not destroyed. I'm going to submit the following patch to fix this bug.
patch mangled just a teeny weeny bit to fit with changes to that code in
2.1-dev, then committed to 2.1-dev... I'll suggest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Also, should we be allowing modules to look at the scoreboard
structures directly, or indexing into the scoreboard arrays directly?
If the latter were avoided, at least we could add fields to the end of
process_score or worker_score without
Title: RE: Mem Leak when reverse proxying HTTP post requests
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mem Leak when reverse proxying HTTP post requests
Larry Toppi wrote:
Matthieu Estrade wrote:
Here is a little patch, fixing the ldap cache using shared memory.
After the fix for plateform using SHM or not, it was a problem with
cache init, unable to get it's rmm address to alloc memory.
why is st-cache_rmm not filled out (or invalid)?
Chris is trying to filter a 650MB file coming in through a proxy. Obviously he
sees that httpd-2.0 is allocating 650MB of memory, since each bucket will
use the request's pool memory and won't free it untill after the request is
over. Now even if his machine was able to deal with one such
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Chris is trying to filter a 650MB file coming in through a proxy. Obviously he
sees that httpd-2.0 is allocating 650MB of memory, since each bucket will
use the request's pool memory and won't free it untill after the request is
over.
Whoa.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Chris is trying to filter a 650MB file coming in through a proxy. Obviously he
sees that httpd-2.0 is allocating 650MB of memory, since each bucket will
use the request's pool memory and won't free it untill after the request is
over.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:18:44PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Are you saying that if I POST N MBytes of data to the server and just have
the server send it back to me, it won't grow by that N MBytes of memory for
the duration of that request? Can you pipe the data out as it comes in? I
At 04:57 PM 12/10/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Obviously it's not how things work at the moment, as the memory is never
freed (which could probably be dealt with), but the real problem is that
no data will leave the server out before it was completely read
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 01:42:54PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
It's a public recorded thing, so I'd say: that surely is more than
sufficient. I was getting at the fact that phonecalls or irc sessions
aren't logged, so there is no way to know there was approval without it
being summarized
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:23:14PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
...
It's NOT the proxy - I've been through it many times - and AFAICT we have
a simple leak in that we don't reuse the individual pool buckets, so memory
creeps up over time. It isn't even the end of the world, until someone
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 06:29:28PM -0500, Glenn wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:18:44PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Are you saying that if I POST N MBytes of data to the server and just have
the server send it back to me, it won't grow by that N MBytes of memory for
the duration of that
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:24:15PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
I was testing on x86 Linux which appears to do the apr_atomics in assembly.
Does it use this atomics implementation by default? I wonder if this
binary would run on an older processor (running a modern version of linux).
-aaron
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 04:57 PM 12/10/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
Obviously it's not how things work at the moment, as the memory is never
freed (which could probably be dealt with), but the real problem is that
no data will leave the server out
Title: RE: filtering huge request bodies (like 650MB files)
Bug 24991 that I just fixed yesterday dealt with a memory leak when reverse proxying HTTP POST requests. The fix was done in mod_proxy_http and the patch has been submitted. I'm not sure if this is the cause of the leak that you
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:37:54PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
...
FWIW, I've never liked this whole r-t-c thing for any branch of
httpd, development or stable. I trust every single other committer
on this project to commit good code and to catch when someone else
commits something bad.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
Which is exactly what is supposed to happen.
Obviously it's not how things work at the moment, as the memory is never
freed (which could probably be dealt with), but the real problem is that
no data will leave the server out before it was completely read in.
Yes, that
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ian Holsman wrote:
do the server's reply to you have a content-length header?
if so .. this is probably what is holding up the request in the server.
Yah, I was going to guess it was probably the C-L filter. But I thought
we had logic in the C-L filter to avoid buffering
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ian Holsman wrote:
do the server's reply to you have a content-length header?
if so .. this is probably what is holding up the request in the server.
Yah, I was going to guess it was probably the C-L filter. But I thought
we had logic in the C-L
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
No, there is no C-L header. The complete filter looks like so:
sub handler {
# Get the filter object
my($f) = @_;
# Only done on the FIRST pass of the filter
unless($f-ctx)
{
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
No, there is no C-L header. The complete filter looks like so:
sub handler {
# Get the filter object
my($f) = @_;
# Only done on the FIRST pass of the filter
unless($f-ctx)
{
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Is it Chrises' own filter or one of ours? whichever it is, it would be nice to
get this fixed.
Can I suggest Chris insert mod_diagnostics at different points in his
chain to identify exactly where it's buffering (if indeed that's where
his
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
But doesn't unsetting the C-L header cause the C-L filter to automatically
attempt to generate a new C-L value?
I thought that bug has been fixed long time ago. Dynamic handlers used to bump
Ryan would know. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
trawick 2003/12/10 14:40:33
Modified:.CHANGES
server core.c
Log:
Fix Limit and LimitExcept parsing to require a closing ''
in the initial container.
PR:25414
Submitted by: Geoffrey Young
On Dec 10, 2003, at 5:15 PM, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stas Bekman wrote:
But doesn't unsetting the C-L header cause the C-L filter to
automatically
attempt to generate a new C-L value?
Not unless the C-L filter sees the entire response in the first brigade
passed through it.
Now you have me thinking. For Apache 2.1 (perhaps 2.0) I'd like to see that
particular nonsense go away. I sympathize with André's observation that it's
useful, but what he wants to do can be accomplished with
IfDefine NEVER
DangerousDirective
/IfDefine
which serves the same purpose, but
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Brian Pane wrote:
But doesn't unsetting the C-L header cause the C-L filter to
automatically attempt to generate a new C-L value?
Not unless the C-L filter sees the entire response in the first brigade
passed through it. It used to buffer the entire response in order
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/11/27 17:03:36 $]
Release:
1.3.30-dev: In development
1.3.29: Tagged October 24, 2003. Announced Oct 29, 2003.
1.3.28: Tagged July 16, 2003. Announced ??
1.3.27: Tagged
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/12/11 02:02:08 $]
Release:
2.0.49 : in development
2.0.48 : released October 29, 2003 as GA.
2.0.47 : released July 09, 2003 as GA.
2.0.46 : released May 28, 2003 as GA.
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/11/20 16:12:28 $]
Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]:
2.1.0 : in development
Please consult the following STATUS files for information
on related
Check out this PR:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20462
plog is created after pconf which means that plog will be cleaned up before pconf during
destroy_and_exit_process() called during shutdown. It is not uncommon for modules to register cleanups against
pconf and log
I'm debugging the issue. I have a good test case, having a response handler
sending 1byte followed by rflush in a loop creates lots of buckets. I can see
that each iteration allocates 40k. i.e. each new bucket brigade and its bucket
demand 40k which won't be reused till the next request. This
Stas Bekman wrote:
I'm debugging the issue. I have a good test case, having a response
handler sending 1byte followed by rflush in a loop creates lots of
buckets. I can see that each iteration allocates 40k. i.e. each new
bucket brigade and its bucket demand 40k which won't be reused till the
55 matches
Mail list logo
