On Thu, Oct 24, 2002, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johannes Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Problem 2:
> > pass_request fills out an iovec with the headers and the body of the
> > request it wants to pass to another process. It unfortunately uses the
> > wrong variable for the
Johannes Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem 1:
> In worker_thread, there is a variable called csd that is used to get
> the new socket from lr->accept_func(). If that variable is NULL, then
> the memory for the new socket is allocated in the per-transaction pool.
> Unfortunately, the co
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > What I was thinking was to add an artificial limitation that you can't
> > > > > share an IP:port pair across two different uid/gid's since that's the
> > > > > only case you
> > As long as you are doing all this work, there is one more thought that I
> > have been meaning to implement, but that I never got around to. Currently
> > perchild doesn't work with SSL, because of when the request is passed off,
> > and how SSL works. The easy solution to this, is to have t
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> Ryan, I've CC'd you on this just to let you see the patch. If you don't
> want me to involve you in this, please accept my apologies and let me
> know and I won't CC you in any further patches.
I have no problem being CC'ed on patches, although for t
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What I was thinking was to add an artificial limitation that you can't
> > > > share an IP:port pair across two different uid/gid's since that's the
> > > > only case you want to pass a connection.
> > >
> > > That limitati
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
>
> > Ryan, I've CC'd you on this just to let you see the patch. If you don't
> > want me to involve you in this, please accept my apologies and let me
> > know and I won't CC you in a
> > Consider the case where an admin configures the server to listen on
> > www.foo.com:8080, but he never assigns a child process to listen to that
> > port. If you just don't accept the connections, the user will hang
> > forever. If every child process, however, actively closes the sockets
>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > As long as you are doing all this work, there is one more thought that I
> > > have been meaning to implement, but that I never got around to. Currently
> > > perchild doesn't work with SSL, because of when the request is
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > Perhaps I misunderstood. The patch I had developed (which is broken
> > because of the problems with the accept lock) just didn't listen on the
> > socket if it has no chance of ans
Johannes Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I spent some time debugging the perchild MPM since it wasn't working for
> me, nor anyone else it seems. I've found a few problems:
just FYI so you don't feel ignored...
if nobody beats me to it, I plan to take a more detailed look at this
with the
11 matches
Mail list logo
