Re: Behavior of Host: vs. SNI Hostname in proxy CONNECT requests

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ruediger Pluem claimed: > Even if they use IP/Port based virtual hosting the SNI name and supplied host > header should be consistent. For all incoming forward proxy requests your statement is complete nonsense. The Host: header consistently appears to reflect

Re: svn commit: r1572703 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/lua/lua_request.c

I suggest the following patch to avoid apr_size_t& to apr_off_t& : Index: modules/lua/lua_request.c === --- modules/lua/lua_request.c(revision 1572748) +++ modules/lua/lua_request.c(working copy) @@ -321,9 +321,9 @@ static int

Re: svn commit: r1572703 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/lua/lua_request.c

On 02/27/2014 10:53 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:10 PM, > wrote: > > Author: humbedooh > Date: Thu Feb 27 19:10:55 2014 > New Revision: 1572703 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1572703 > Log: > mod_lua: Only read up to wha

Re: svn commit: r1572703 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/lua/lua_request.c

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:10 PM, wrote: > Author: humbedooh > Date: Thu Feb 27 19:10:55 2014 > New Revision: 1572703 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1572703 > Log: > mod_lua: Only read up to whatever the user defines as max size when using > r:parsebody() - if content length is greater, return an

Re: Adding AddHandler support for mod_proxy

>Thx for the patch! Let me take a look... I'm assuming that there's >no real work-around other than the patch itself, right? If there is, we could not find it :) We have been searching for months and trying different approaches. This is required to work with out of the box installation of many app

Re: Review of mod_proxy_http proposal for httpd 2.4.8

Hello Yann, Thanks for your explanation. Okay, that clears it up for me. On 2/27/2014 1:36 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: Hello Mike , thanks for looking at this. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Mike Rumph > wrote: I am trying to review the following mod_proxy_ht

Re: Behavior of Host: vs. SNI Hostname in proxy CONNECT requests

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Ruediger Pluem > wrote: > >> > >> Yann Ylavic wrote: > >>> There seem to be different questions in this thread regarding SNI. > >>> Maybe we can enumerate them first to see what'

RE: PR 50335 missing patch?

I guess the easiest one in this case is to create a new one. Regards Rüdiger From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2014 14:25 To: httpd Subject: Re: PR 50335 missing patch? On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group mailto:ruediger.pl

Re: Adding AddHandler support for mod_proxy

Thx for the patch! Let me take a look... I'm assuming that there's no real work-around other than the patch itself, right? On Feb 26, 2014, at 1:47 PM, ryo takatsuki wrote: > Hi all, > > Any other comments about the patch? I believe it is simple enough and > could ease the migration from mod_ph

Re: PR 50335 missing patch?

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group < ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote: > Go ahead and commit it. We can update the backport proposal for 2.2.x > afterwards and propose it as a new one to 2.4.x. > Commited to trunk and backport proposed to 2.4.x. For 2.2.x I'm not s

RE: PR 50335 missing patch?

Go ahead and commit it. We can update the backport proposal for 2.2.x afterwards and propose it as a new one to 2.4.x. Regards Rüdiger From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2014 12:36 To: httpd Subject: PR 50335 missing patch? Hi, the patch proposed by R

Re: PR 50335 missing patch?

On 02/27/2014 12:35 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: Hi, the patch proposed by Rüdiger at https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335#c30 has not been commited in trunk (nor backported...). Shouldn't it to fully address the issue? I think that just this patch wouldn't fix this particular PR

PR 50335 missing patch?

Hi, the patch proposed by Rüdiger at https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50335#c30 has not been commited in trunk (nor backported...). Shouldn't it to fully address the issue? It seems that the error path is concerned too (since conn->scpool is still destroyed before r->pool). Reg

mod_cgi, ScriptLog and stderr of cgi scripts

Hi, documentation of ScriptLog says "If given, any CGI errors are logged into the filename given as argument". I have found out that errors printed by cgi script to stderr are not logged into ScriptLog and are just in error_log. I'm not sure if that's intended behaviour or a bug, but I've cr

Re: Review of mod_proxy_http proposal for httpd 2.4.8

Hello Mike , thanks for looking at this. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Mike Rumph wrote: > I am trying to review the following mod_proxy_http proposal for httpd > 2.4.8: > >* mod_proxy_http: Log an error when reading the request body fails. > trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r157