Mind to sent a version v9 of your patch such that I can review the
complete one again? Thanks for your efforts.
Sorry, please disregard v9 - it makes SSL_VERIFY_CLIENT report GENEROUS
even in cases where it could/should be SUCCESS, actually (if the CA list
stays the same; i.e., v9 doesn't
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Kaspar Brand
Gesendet: Samstag, 25. April 2009 09:37
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: SNI in 2.2.x (Re: Time for 2.2.10?)
Mind to sent a version v9 of your patch such that I can review the
complete one again? Thanks for your efforts.
Committed v10 with some smaller tweaks as r768499. Especially I removed
@@ -186,16 +186,6 @@ int ssl_hook_ReadReq(request_rec *r)
return HTTP_BAD_REQUEST;
}
}
-else if (r-connection-vhost_lookup_data) {
-/*
- * We are using a name based
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ruediger Pluem
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. April 2009 21:34
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: segfaults / core dumps caused by
ap_internal_fast_redirect
On 04/20/2009 06:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
3. Fix
On 04/25/2009 11:20 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Committed v10 with some smaller tweaks as r768499. Especially I removed
@@ -186,16 +186,6 @@ int ssl_hook_ReadReq(request_rec *r)
return HTTP_BAD_REQUEST;
}
}
-else if (r-connection-vhost_lookup_data)
