tion when
virtual hosting was added, and it was just convenience that suexec uses
them. If this is correct presumably there are no fundamental reasons
why suexec configuration cannot be more specific?
I imagine this would be easier to add in Apache 2 now that the directive
is different?
Best w
* More machine-dependent networking gooo... on some systems,
* you've got to be *really* sure that all the packets are acknowledged
@@ -206,5 +208,7 @@
if (!c->aborted) {
ap_run_process_connection(c);
}
+
+ap_run_post_connection(c, csd);
}
--
James Ponder; www.sq
ne in the cleanup code,
for example is there any memory that might have vanished as I'm trying to
do things? (I can't actually think what I may want to do on a connection
close apart from use the IP/socket information - presumably that's at least
still available)
Best wishes
g compat as an additional apr "why"
code needs to be passed to the maintenance functions.
Best wishes, James
--
James Ponder; www.squish.net; London, UK
Best wishes, James
--
James Ponder; www.squish.net; London, UK
process them. These threads then
pass the connections on to the correct user-owned child id via the named
sockets, allowing these child users to have no listening sockets at all
(except the unix domain socket).
Best wishes, James
--
James Ponder; www.squish.net; London, UK
l of using suexec, to a perchild model. If
there aren't other problems (perhaps other modules creating file descriptors)
then this would seem a sensible way forward, removing the need for suexec and
opening the possibility that we could offer dynamic content module providers
(mod_perl etc) in a secure way to our users.
Best wishes, James
--
James Ponder; www.squish.net; London, UK
