Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:13:47PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:37:04PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > Shouldn't that be argc < 2? > > It is < 3 to make the second arg truly optional, so a proto default is No, you were right the logic was borked. Updated patch which

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:13 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > If it is safe to assume "=" can never appear in a > protocol name, we could catch any proto with "=" and make that a config > error again. Looks sensible to me, the proto is supposed to be a scheme (so ALNUM or [.+-], IIRC).

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:53 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > Opinions? Is there still consensus that extending Listen like this is a > good idea? +1, nice. I also like that we can set reuseport without ListenCoresBucketsRatio > 0, both are orthogonal I think.

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Joe Orton
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:37:04PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > Looks good in general apart from the comment below. > > On 4/21/20 2:53 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > > @@ -1058,7 +1104,24 @@ AP_DECLARE_NONSTD(const char *) > > ap_set_listener(cmd_parms *cmd, void *dummy, > > return "Port

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Ruediger Pluem
Looks good in general apart from the comment below. On 4/21/20 2:53 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > @@ -1058,7 +1104,24 @@ AP_DECLARE_NONSTD(const char *) > ap_set_listener(cmd_parms *cmd, void *dummy, > return "Port must be specified"; > } > > -if (argc != 2) { > +if (argc == 3)

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Luca Toscano
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:53 AM Joe Orton wrote: > > > > A previous conversation [1] about optionally enabling socket options for > > Listen seemed to gain consensus around adding an optional argument, > > rather than multiple alternative

Re: [RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:53 AM Joe Orton wrote: > > A previous conversation [1] about optionally enabling socket options for > Listen seemed to gain consensus around adding an optional argument, > rather than multiple alternative Listen-like directives. > > I've attached a patch based on work by

[RFC] optional Listen options= argument

2020-04-21 Thread Joe Orton
A previous conversation [1] about optionally enabling socket options for Listen seemed to gain consensus around adding an optional argument, rather than multiple alternative Listen-like directives. I've attached a patch based on work by both Jan Kaluza and Lubos Uhliarik which implements this,

Re: svn commit: r1876664 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: modules/http2/h2_request.c server/protocol.c

2020-04-21 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:51 AM Ruediger Pluem: > > On 4/19/20 5:26 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > + > > +/* Validate Host/Expect headers and select vhost. */ > > if (!ap_check_request_header(r)) { > > access_status = r->status; > > -goto die_early; > > +goto