apreq_body() triggers seg fault during POST?

2009-03-28 Thread Erik Westland
I just started using this last night, but am encountering a seg fault when I call apreq_body() in an InputFilter (C-based) during an HTTP POST. I am able to call this (returns non APR_SUCCESS) when the method is GET, but crashes when I switch to POST. I am able to call apreq_params() and

Untouchable header fields ?

2009-03-28 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Folks, Am I right in looking at (trunk, 2.2): file: http_filters.c function basic_http_header if (proxy) else { date = apr_palloc(r-pool, APR_RFC822_DATE_LEN); ap_recent_rfc822_date(date, r-request_time); form_header_field(h, Date, date);

Re: Untouchable header fields ?

2009-03-28 Thread Paul Querna
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org wrote: Folks, Am I right in looking at (trunk, 2.2): file: http_filters.c    function basic_http_header        if (proxy)        else {        date = apr_palloc(r-pool, APR_RFC822_DATE_LEN);        

mod_serf: now somewhat working

2009-03-28 Thread Paul Querna
I've updated mod_serf. It now does: - Fully Async Proxying when running on the Event MPM - Dynamic Clustered Backends based on machines with mod_heartbeat running. - New provider for providing a list of IPs to use, rather than the mod_proxy interface of only working with known workers -- I

Re: mod_serf: now somewhat working

2009-03-28 Thread Graham Leggett
Paul Querna wrote: - Much simpler configuration than mod_proxy, using location blocks (or locationMatch), rather than ProxyPass' hacking of URI stuff way earlier. Proxy is also able to do that. :) I agree, it is a better way to express the configuration. Example configuration: SerfCluster

httpd -k start illegal option -- k

2009-03-28 Thread Mladen Turk
Current trunk gives the $ ./httpd -k start httpd: illegal option -- k $ ./httpd -V Server version: Apache/2.3.3-dev (Unix) Server built: Mar 28 2009 19:59:29 Server's Module Magic Number: 20090208:1 Server loaded: APR 2.0.0-dev, APR-UTIL 2.0.0-dev Compiled using: APR 2.0.0-dev, APR-UTIL

Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)

2009-03-28 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 08/29/2008 07:09 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote: Making SNI support configurable at runtime also seems a more attractive solution to me - it would basically mean that in ssl_init_ctx(), the SNI callback is not registered unless it's explicitly configured. I would suggest using something like

Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)

2009-03-28 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 08/19/2008 08:16 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: At the moment we have 9 entries in the CHANGES file for 2.2.10 and there are 5 more proposals in the STATUS file that are missing only one vote. I think if get these done we also have enough stuff from pure httpd point of

Re: httpd -k start illegal option -- k

2009-03-28 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 03/28/2009 08:11 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Current trunk gives the $ ./httpd -k start httpd: illegal option -- k $ ./httpd -V Server version: Apache/2.3.3-dev (Unix) Server built: Mar 28 2009 19:59:29 Server's Module Magic Number: 20090208:1 Server loaded: APR 2.0.0-dev, APR-UTIL

Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)

2009-03-28 Thread Gregg L. Smith
Just 2 cents. I do like the toggle switch in this patch. Now that OpenSSL defaults to SNI enabled, I like it even more! One less thing to remember at compile, one build instead of two separate being best of both worlds, and the user (me) having to knowingly switch it on, not just on cause it

Re: mod_serf: now somewhat working

2009-03-28 Thread M. Brian Akins
On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Paul Querna wrote: - Much simpler configuration than mod_proxy, using location blocks (or locationMatch), rather than ProxyPass' hacking of URI stuff way earlier. It'd be nice to be able to configure and do stuff at run time using Lua. Someone had to ask...

Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)

2009-03-28 Thread Sander Temme
On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: IP based virtual hosting with SSL works as before. This means with SNI enabled clients as well as with not SNI enabled clients. Name based virtual hosting with SSL does *only* work with SNI *enabled* clients. Not SNI enabled clients