The patch proposed here fixes this:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201401.mbox/%3CCAKQ1sVOZ4M9626H-1eAuOPwgQYURntd7k2Oks%2B5HTchg9Y%2BEow%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Regards,
Yann.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
j...@apache.org wrote:
I am out of the office until 01/27/2014.
For immediate assistance, please forward your message to the following
teams.
DB2 Security questions contact askDB2Security
SAL questions contact askSAL
or contact my manager Mokhtar Kandil
For all urgent matters, please contact my manager Mokhtar
Is it possible to merge this patch into httpd-2.4 / 2.5 ?
This would solve problems if the backend is an IBMs Access Manager V6.0 or
an other server not able to serve absoluteURIs
Reqards,
Hendrik
2013/12/16 Hendrik Harms hendrik.ha...@gmail.com
If an (improper) backend server could only
Let me take a look... if all it doesn't is streamline the
logic then it makes sense: +1
On Jan 23, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently working on a patch to be able to configure the lifetime (TTL)
of mod_proxy's DNS lookups (I know about graceful
Hmmm from what I can see, if we have a hostname and the address
is re-usable, we do stuff we shouldn't.
r1560979 is my streamlining...
Thx for the idea
On Jan 24, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Let me take a look... if all it doesn't is streamline the
logic then it
On 16 Jan 2014, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Eckert thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com wrote:
I've had this deployed for some time now and it works just fine. Did this
just fall asleep or is further explanation desired ?
It just woke up - committed in r1560977 and proposed for backport to v2.4.x.
Regards,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Hmmm from what I can see, if we have a hostname and the address
is re-usable, we do stuff we shouldn't.
The patch does nothing in the case you mention (like the original code),
but I guess you meant we have a hostnane and
is_address_reuseable is a flag noting whether or not
the address has an ability; disablereuse is a setting
which allows the sysadmin to bypass that setting no matter
what and, eventually, could be something set/reset in
real-time via the balancer-manager.
For example, I have a driver's license so
Isn't it curious how the expiry is inspected before the session is decoded?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Eckert thomas.r.w.eck...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've had this deployed for some time now and it works just fine.
On Jan 22, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
When multiple requests (simultaneously) hit the reverse worker, isn't there
an issue here regarding worker-s-uds_path?
Yes...
FWIW, I tend to commit things in trunk as works-in-progress;
once it works for me and is
-#if APR_VERSION_AT_LEAST(1,5,1)
+#ifdef APR_EOPNOTSUPP
rv != APR_EOPNOTSUPP
#endif
) {
As Jeff said in the other thread, this doesn't work if there's a lower
APR fix level at runtime, which is against the APR contract.
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
-#if APR_VERSION_AT_LEAST(1,5,1)
+#ifdef APR_EOPNOTSUPP
rv != APR_EOPNOTSUPP
#endif
) {
As Jeff said in the other thread, this doesn't work if there's a lower
APR fix level at runtime, which
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:01 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Jan 24 20:01:47 2014
New Revision: 1561137
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1561137
Log:
handle leak. thx to Y^2
yw J^2 ;)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
-#if APR_VERSION_AT_LEAST(1,5,1)
+#ifdef APR_EOPNOTSUPP
rv != APR_EOPNOTSUPP
#endif
) {
As Jeff said in the other
I see, you can't hold your liquor :)
Suppose now you have that ability too, would you choose the uncomfortable
sofa or your soft bed?
Seriously, FWIU (now) is_address_reusable (I was deceived by the name) and
disablereuse concern addr and sock, together.
Doesn't it make sense to disable socket
On httpd there was a discussion regarding versioning, and
this got me thinking...
Included in the APR 1.5.1 changes is an internal change
to how apr_shm_create(), when using APR_USE_SHMEM_SHMGET,
calculates the key (via ftok())...
The problem (see the Bugz report) was that using the constant
1
According to the man (
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009696899/functions/ftok.html), ftok()
uses only the low-order 8-bits of the id.
Maybe the APR could use the last char of the filename instead, so that the
users knows and can choose it.
For APR's internal/choosen filenames (if any), this
It's easy to generate something unique... the problem is that
external APR users (such as mod_fcgid, etc) occasionally need
to adjust the segment resources, and thus call ftok(...). Unless
both APR *and* the users use the same proj_id, then they won't
get the right segment (if at all).
I just
Dear All,
Our analysis of Apache httpd 2.4.7 prefork mpm, on 32 and 64 thread Intel Xeon
2600 series systems, using an open source three tier social networking web
server workload, revealed performance scaling issues. In current software
single listen statement (listen 80) provides better
Why couldn't APR document on using ftok(filename,
filename[strlen(filename)-1]) for released versions, and do the right thing
in trunk?
Is ftok(filename, 1) part of the ABI since the change would break existing
consumers?
I can't see any solution if that's the case.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:20
Of course, one could also say that anyone who uses internal
APR implementation knowledge is doing something wrong...
And they would have a point.
But it still begs the question what to do w/ slotmem
which must set shmem permissions. I would guess what
we should really do is provide
I think it could be debated on whether or not ftok(...,1) is
part of the ABI or not. The more I think about it,
it's not. But the fact that both slotmem and mod_fcgid, which
are *our* projects, use that knowledge, makes me wonder
who else makes that assumption.
What do others think...? It would
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't APR document on using ftok(filename,
filename[strlen(filename)-1]) for released versions, and do the right thing
in trunk?
ftok(filename, hash(filename)) is much better of course, I misread
external as
Those who use ftok(, 1) externally like httpd will face the bug soon or
later too (unless they use the same filenames each time).
I think some (at least) will like this to be fixed, so the current code is
fine for me.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I
On 1/21/2014 7:46 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
* FCGI
If anyone plans of giving a talk about FCGI please let me know. I can't
attend but have some input (and a new module I am almost done with) that
may be useful.
Kean
25 matches
Mail list logo
