On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Errr, this is in 2.2.x/STATUS only (not 2.4.x).
Is it already pro
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> Errr, this is in 2.2.x/STATUS only (not 2.4.x).
>>> Is it already proposed/backported to 2.4.x (I can't find the commit)?
>>
>> I
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> Errr, this is in 2.2.x/STATUS only (not 2.4.x).
>> Is it already proposed/backported to 2.4.x (I can't find the commit)?
>
> I diff'ed trunk and 2.4 and It seems to be absent.
>
> I don't
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Errr, this is in 2.2.x/STATUS only (not 2.4.x).
> Is it already proposed/backported to 2.4.x (I can't find the commit)?
I diff'ed trunk and 2.4 and It seems to be absent.
I don't have the best handle on this, but if we're about to go down
int
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Eric, Jeff, since you already voted for r1621453 in 2.4.x/STATUS
Errr, this is in 2.2.x/STATUS only (not 2.4.x).
Is it already proposed/backported to 2.4.x (I can't find the commit)?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> I don't think mod_reqtimeout should handle/count speculative bytes,
>>> they ought to be read for real later (and taken into accou
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> I don't think mod_reqtimeout should handle/count speculative bytes,
>> they ought to be read for real later (and taken into account then).
>> Otherwise, the same bytes may be counted mult
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> But it seemed a little hokey, but I didn't really understand if we
>> could instead treat that speculative read as some kind of reset point
>> and couldn't think of any other hook to tel
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> I am looking at this PR which I was able to recreate:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56729
Whoops, I got the topic backwards. Fast post, slow response.
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> But it seemed a little hokey, but I didn't really understand if we
> could instead treat that speculative read as some kind of reset point
> and couldn't think of any other hook to tell reqtimeout to bail out.
>
> Any alternatives?
I don't t
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Montag, 25. August 2014 22:05
> To: Apache HTTP Server Development List
> Subject: PR56729: reqtimeout bug with fast response and slow POST
>
> I am looking at this PR which I was able to
I am looking at this PR which I was able to recreate:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56729
mod_reqtimeout thinks the body is still being read when it gets called
with mode=AP_MODE_SPECULATIVE during check_pipeline() near the end of
a request
Since all of the handlers processi
12 matches
Mail list logo
