Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41364] chunk-size contains space

On Friday 01 August 2008 19:51:48 William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41364 > > > > > > Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: > > > >What|Removed |Added > > -

Re: overview of MPMs?

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:52 +1000, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > 2008/4/11 Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi all, > > > > Just wondering if anyone has a link or howto that would give me some > > background info on the interface with the different MPM > &g

overview of MPMs?

Hi all, Just wondering if anyone has a link or howto that would give me some background info on the interface with the different MPM modes/implementations? I'm not even sure where the different implementations are in the source tree, but I'm curious to take a look if someone could point me in the

Re: --enable-distcache

Hi Philip, Sifting through a tonne of mail that has been spooling away on the side for the last few months. In particular, I saw this post of yours w.r.t. distcache last november, and I didn't see any reply on the list; On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 06:00 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: [snip] > ./confi

Re: r382799 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_scache_shmcb.c

nment-vulnerable archs (eg. sparc). Unless I suddenly become the victim of a drive-by hardware donation, it won't be me doing this. This version is also easier on the eyes (smaller too) BTW. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/ Self-interest and ma

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.1) Wed Apr 13 23:46:37 2005

ch that could be unsufficient? Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/ Greedy Genghis George, Guru of God and Guns.

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.1) Wed Apr 13 23:46:37 2005

g. If you have it not too far away, I'd love a copy :-) Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/ Greedy Genghis George, Guru of God and Guns.

Re: Apache with Security Processor - Interesting

On October 21, 2004 01:05 pm, Madhusudan Mathihalli wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:10:53 -0400, Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did the control-command support ever make it into a cvs-worthy form? > > Nope - I don't believe it is in the CVS. Can you re-s

Re: Apache with Security Processor - Interesting

ness directly (and in any other ways they come up with without needing the code changed). Let me know if this isn't already in CVS because I had a diff floating around somewhere that did this. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: OCSP addition

already has a fairly clear idea of the configuration and architecture they are after and so can live with any additional rules you impose. > Is somebody interesting in testing that code, or even work on it ? I really can't help here, but I wish you the best with it. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PATCH] Fix SEGV in ssl_scache_shmcb.c

ement in efficiency (and code quality) and would also be useful if it's considered solid enough, but it should be independent of the fix. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/ diff -urN httpd-2.0.49/modules/ssl/ssl_scache_shmcb.c httpd-2.0.49-patched/m

Re: [PATCH] Flag OpenSSL to NOT store sessions

SLVerifyClient is enabled along with SSLSessionCache. Makes sense, the server should not use any per-process caching. If your patch lets session caching work but doesn't leak, that would indicate you've got the right flags. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 24 23:45:11 EST 2004

> > > Is the comment on line 609 wrong OR is line 613 wrong ? Neither. Line 610 is the reason, even if I wasn't able to rite my english proper like at a time the riting did. :-) Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 24 23:45:11 EST 2004

and accessed, which is why the flippant STATUS note had been bugging me. However, that more fundamental change may be a worthwhile anyway ... OK, I will report back on this once I get down into the bowels of this code again chasing Ken's bug. Does this mean I've got some volunteers

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 24 23:45:11 EST 2004

7;ve asked on more than one occasion and had no response. Why is this comment here? From who and where does it come? Could it please be either (a) discussed, or (b) removed? It happens to make very little sense, but I'd certainly be keen to hear if someone has any rational logic to the con

Re: Error messages from ssl_scache_shmcb

banging on it. I'll look into this and let you know what I find (though don't hold out much hope until early next week at the earliest, the next few days promise to be pretty busy). Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: Error messages from ssl_scache_shmcb

as it's also possible that some of the porting to apache2 might have introduced some niggles along the way. As it happens, I'm going to be delving in the next few days anyway because of bug 27751[1] - perhaps this is related? If you want to get some context from the mement this err

Re: [OT] sco stuff (was: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository)

u for such honest measures. Happy hacking. > Please keep that in mind. Amen, Geoff PS: If SCO loses their case, would that be a Gargantuan Profiteering Loss? -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository

ging and redistribution of open source tools coming from the sco.com domain. Anyway, irony is better than flaming, surely? (I'll avoid comments about it being a free world, as the courts have yet to decide that one.) Cheers, Geoff PS: Smile, boys will be Boies. -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Move httpd to the subversion repository

On March 16, 2004 09:10 pm, Kean Johnston wrote: > You can get the latest from > > ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc > > Its one-stop shopping for most of the useful open > source libraries. Do we need to buy a license? Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMA

Re: [PATCH] SSLCryptoDevCtl support

g reads in main() are consolidated. -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

STATUS (was [PATCH] OpenSSL dynamic engines under 2.0.48)

to improve the code however (and I really should find time to do that), but the current comment is likely to lead someone to doing something very painful to themselves. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PATCH] OpenSSL dynamic engines under 2.0.48

ot;foo" ENGINE doesn't already exist. So if Apache doesn't want to go the route of generalised control commands, they could wait until 0.9.8 is out and then this basic use-case will be available transparently, without any change to what's there now. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: mod_ssl not sending Alert upon close ?

nnily enough, I was just stewing on a similar problem with openssl's builtin "s_server" application - in that case, the braindamage is in s_server.c's use of "SSL_CTX_set_quiet_shutdown(ctx,1)". Perhaps apache2 is doing the same thing? Cheers, Geoff

Re: distcache support in mod_ssl for 2.1

to past or present issues, comments, bugs, etc would be welcome - I'll try to find some time shortly to go in there and clean things up. (Yes, I promise to turn off the tabs too :-). Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: distcache support in mod_ssl for 2.1

in the mean time? > - move distcache checks into modules/ssl/config.m4 Biensur. :-) Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

distcache (was RE: consider reopening 1.3)

reorganisation. I helped with the latter at that time, and we sorted out the remaining issues in distcache shortly after. So ... if there's anyone on the apache side who'd be prepared to look deeper into this and discuss integration with apache, please make contact with me of

Re: OpenSSL locking was Re: mod_ssl broken as DSO in HEAD

ie. the segfault you're seeing *and* the issue about attaching an opaque pointer to caller-provide locking callbacks, it would make sense to take that conversation over to openssl-dev. In particular, we should get any appropriate details into the request-tracking system. BTW: Once we'

Re: mod_ssl broken as DSO in HEAD

how, I can help. If you want to hunt around yourself, check out the "apps_startup()" and "apps_shutdown()" macro definitions inside apps/apps.h in the openssl source. You may not need all of those cleanups, and of course YMMV :-) Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: mod_ssl broken as DSO in HEAD

and then check for memory leaks using valgrind or whatever. Other than those vague thoughts, I can't suggest much else. If this continues to resist your efforts, please let me know how I can reproduce and debug this (in linux) from the apache point of view. I'm a bit shallow in my k

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl ...

Hi there, On May 27, 2003 01:17 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 02:46 PM 5/25/2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote: [snip] > >OK, I can't say anything of much usefulness about SSL-C as I have no > >experience with it. What I would suggest is that clean SSL-C support > > in Apa

Update on distcache support

once the problem is resolved. Any behaviour to the contrary is a bug. If anyone is interested in this, please consider popping over to the distcache-users mail list. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/ Index: LAYOUT ===

Re: [PATCH] remove shmht from mod_ssl

his has generally meant "gcc has found another way on another platform to butcher the 'safe' accessor functions". All the more reason to think about getting the shmcb code more robust against such issues before pulling the plug on shmht. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PATCH] openssl versions?

er this has the capacity to bite anyone whose build system or installation target is dependant on the oddities of the existing behaviour is another question. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration (v2)

e, but then that should come as no surprise ... Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: mod_ssl to-do items

rface is not going to lead to any clean way to layer caching mechanisms. (This is stuff I've been dealing with in distcache BTW, but that's another spiel for another day). Thanks for getting back to me about this. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: mod_ssl to-do items

Hi (again :-), * Justin Erenkrantz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > --On Thursday, March 6, 2003 12:42 PM -0500 Geoff Thorpe > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > >>* session cache store should be pluggable > > > >I'd like to speak with the person

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration (v2)

d (using APR_ADDTO), (2) don't try to grep the version text yet for output from "configure" nor assume the "openssl" binary to generate it, (3) put include paths into INCLUDES (using APR_ADDTO) then the patch attached to this mail should be OK? Does this seem reas

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration (v2)

want to leave you with; - I've incorporated the use of `$apr_config --libs` as you suggested and so my patch is currently broken, but I want to head in the right direction. Any ideas why the successfully reported -lssl -lcrypto flags disappear from the generated Makefile's? -

Re: [STATUS] (httpd-2.0) Wed Mar 5 23:45:12 EST 2003

y suggest that the "safe" accessors (which aren't speed-critical) would be easier to maintain. Again, I'm available to bash these ideas out if anyone's interested. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

[PATCH] openssl configuration (v2)

searching for headers and libraries and instead let autoconf probes (combined with --with-ssl=) find whatever they find. In other words, perhaps some people might have been relying on the unconventional anti-autoconf nature of the existing checks that my changes remove? Any/all feedback most welcome. C

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration

ood, I wish I'd spotted it before (it shouldn't surprise you that I was more used to looking at mod_ssl/apache-1.3 source so didn't expect to find that). As long as compatiblity can be maintained merely by pre-compiler tricks and stub functions/macros, then why not? I think the error is in trying to do this transparently by trying to keep configure checks and source code confined to areas of commonality between different toolkits. Those areas will continue to shrink :-) Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration

Hi Thom, * Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Geoff Thorpe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > > It would perhaps make sense to provide a "--force-ssl-ver" type of > > option that would bypass version checks, and then have any version > > checking failure text poin

Re: [PATCH] openssl configuration

n taking a hands-off approach to the use of fork()d toolkits - nobody can give Apache or its users any guarantees that they'll be able to rely on continued similarities. Or were you referring to SSLeay? Or compability layers built on top of something else? Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/

[PATCH] openssl configuration

rs are now included with the "openssl/" directory prefix. - modules/ssl/config.m4 no longer needs to check SSL_set_state and SSL_set_cert_store functions - the only possible use for these was because nothing up until that point had run any compiler or link tests on th