Sorry for coming into this discussion late.
I think this is an excellent set of patches. I had developed a similar
enhancement to allow mod_dbd to connect with multiple databases at my last
job but never had a chance to make it available here. Your version is far
more clever and configurable.
I
It looks like it's interpreting the whole 'bla bla blaGET' as
the method for the second request. Is there a two or three sets of '/r/n'
(or just '/n' in Windows?) after the header in the first message; if three,
perhaps it's interpreting the first message as a POST with no body?
Ron
On Thu, Mar
c:801
#6 0x4021abec in dummy_worker (opaque=0xfffc) at thread.c:88
#7 0x402a2881 in pthread_start_thread () from /lib/i686/libpthread.so.0
Thanks,
Ron
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Ronald Park wrote:
I'm investigating a difficult to diagnose problem and I came across the
following code in core_output_filter():
Yuck. I HATE the core_output_filter. I probably know that code as well
as anybody, and yet every
ee where the 'Worker MPM, stranded
processes' thread goes as that might be related.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Ron
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 15:31 -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Ronald Park wrote:
>
> > Now, for the bad news: we don't know if there'
then
> > apologies.
>
> take worker MPM, for example
>
> each child process has a thread that listens for new connections; when
> it gets one, it uses apr_thread_cond*() APIs to dispatch a worker
> thread to handle that connection
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ng for the big mutex
but nothing that checks and blocks on the queue being full. And
without that, isn't it possible for push to go out of bounds?
Thanks,
Ron
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
break;
}
This break makes it skip the apr_brigade_cleanup(bb) call at the end
of the do loop. Shouldn't it cleanup this EOS brigade?
Thanks,
Ron
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lines of code in
> send_request_body(). The rest of it is the muscle, and that shouldn't be
> controversial...either it works or it doesn't, and I can't spot any problems.
>
> Greg
>
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2-02 at 09:37 -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
> Ronald Park wrote:
> > I was recently considering a similar patch for mod_proxy along the lines
> > of spool_reqbody_cl() method but it would go one step further: spawning
> > off a thread to asynchronously read the request into a temp file
wo
> > for a reply, but it does add at least 3 context switches. (in some use
> > cases this would work great, in others, it would hurt performance...)
> >
>
> I don't think it would give any benefit. Well perhaps only on
> forward proxies it could spare some keep-alive connections.
>
> Regards,
> Mladen.
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 13:26 -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 12:32:39 -0500, Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was recently considering a similar patch for mod_proxy along the lines
> > of spool_reqbody_cl() method but it would go one step further: spaw
Hi All,
Is there a PR associated with the Security fix for the DOS attack via
the MIME folded headers? Or, more importantly, a patch file showing
what was changed? I'd like to see about back-porting it to an older
version. :)
Thanks,
Ron
--
Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Folks,
I'm trying to get ProxyTimeout to work and having no luck.
I've set up 2 Apache instances in my network. These are
Apache 2.0.59 servers built on a 64 bit Redhat EL4 box.
On the first, I've just added the following directives:
ProxyTimeout 2
ProxyPass /cgi-bin http:///cgi-bin/
On t
the connection, not the request. If that's true, the description
of the directive is confusing. :/
For me, it's actually going to a timeout value set in the notes
table by another module so we can control proxy timeouts per
request "on the fly". :)
Ron
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at
[[Resending as I suspect my junk mail filters flagged it
on sending it. :/ However, if this did make it, I apologize
for this duplicate sending.]]
Hi Folks,
I'm trying to get ProxyTimeout to work and having no luck.
I've set up 2 Apache instances in my network. These are
Apache 2.0.59 servers
Hello,
I am testing a module I wrote which does some lengthy processing
during the the 'log_transaction' hook of a request when I noticed
some peculiar behavior with the Flood testing tool as compared to
tools like wget and curl.
Namely, Flood, despite receiving a 'Connection: close' header, a
'C
I'm writing a module which is intended to do it's work
'asynchronously'. My module takes the body of a POST,
stores it into a note and immediately generates a response
code of 200. Then, during the logging stage, it does
that actual work (in my case, writing stuff into a db).
I have 'KeepAlives
According to the description of the ProxyTimeout directive, this
is the expected behavior:
> This directive allows a user to specifiy a timeout on proxy requests.
> This is useful when you have a slow/buggy appserver which hangs, and
> you would rather just return a timeout and fail gracefully ins
so I'll go ahead and
try.
Ron
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 17:12 -0500, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 4:39 PM, Ronald Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > According to the description of the ProxyTimeout directive, this
> > is the expected behavior:
>
> I think thi
The problem and patch in the below message are in regards to just
the Apache 2.0 line; it seems like a number of improvements in
timeout handling have already been implemented in the 2.2 version
of mod_proxy.
However, also included in my patch is a mechanism to provide even
more granularity in tim
to include
just the fix part if that will help get it included in the
2.0 line.
Ron
On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 09:06 +0100, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Chris H. wrote:
> > Quoting Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>
> >> On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Ronal
concern for the 2.0 line and so I'm
correctly attaching and sending this patch now and hope that
some others find it useful.
Ron
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 10:34 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Ronald Park wrote:
> >
> > Attached is my patch to 2.0.63 t
Hi Folks,
After fumbling up a previous attempt to send in this patch,
I'm going to try again, making sure to attach the patch this
time. :)
The following patch makes mod_proxy truly use ProxyTimeout
for the actual sending and receiving of the proxied request;
as it's currently implemented, it use
.
so ProxyTimeout does not govern the actual sending
and receiving of the proxied request, Timeout does.
(This is what I tried to say in the comments,
sorry it wasn't clear.)
I'm reattaching the patch, just in case. :)
Ron
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Ronald Park wrote:
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
