On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:39:57PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
Given that the semantics of the options has changed, I don't think it's
worth changing httpd to maintain any pretence of compile-time or
run-time compatibility
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:26:07PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
Attaching my original analysis for security@ which hopefully answers
that question ;)
attempt 2
I've now had a deeper look into this. I can't see a way to fix the
problem without changing the semantics of the OPT_ bits used, as I
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Does somebody else care to share their opinion on this? Which of these
are okay?
- existing mod_perl releases
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Does somebody else care to share their
On Fri 22 May 2009, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Hmmm, after trying to use what seems like a cool feature, I find that
mod_perl was never taught to use the Apache 2's mod_include plug-in
interface.
AFAIK, that is provided by Geoff's CPAN module Apache::IncludeHook or
so.
Torsten
--
Need
Joe Orton wrote:
Having thought about this longer, I do agree that it would be reasonable
to provide OPT_INCNOEXEC as a noop integer for back-compat, but, it
turns out we're out of bits - allow_options_t is an unsigned char and
we're using 2^0 through 2^7 already. :(
The C langauge
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Torsten Foertsch
torsten.foert...@gmx.netwrote:
On Fri 22 May 2009, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Hmmm, after trying to use what seems like a cool feature, I find that
mod_perl was never taught to use the Apache 2's mod_include plug-in
interface.
AFAIK, that is
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Having thought about this longer, I do agree that it would be reasonable
to provide OPT_INCNOEXEC as a noop integer for back-compat, but, it
turns out we're out of bits - allow_options_t is
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Having thought about this longer, I do agree that it would be reasonable
to provide OPT_INCNOEXEC as a noop integer
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Backing up a bit...
I originally thought we could map bit values in 2.2.x to avoid affecting
modules, but that isn't possible since includes-with-exec is two bits
instead of one.
Hold on... I think this can still work;
* Retain new true 'Includes' bit as old
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Backing up a bit...
I originally thought we could map bit values in 2.2.x to avoid affecting
modules, but that isn't possible since includes-with-exec is two bits
instead of one.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:15:00AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:17 AM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Tue May 12 13:17:29 2009
New Revision: 773881
URL:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Does somebody else care to share their opinion on this? Which of these
are okay?
- existing mod_perl releases (and potentially other third-party modules)
won't compile with 2.2.12
CORE_PRIVATE may be broken from release to release, it's a necessary
concession to prevent
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Does somebody else care to share their opinion on this? Which of these
are okay?
- existing mod_perl releases (and potentially other third-party modules)
won't compile with 2.2.12
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:15:00AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:17 AM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Tue May 12 13:17:29 2009
New Revision: 773881
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=773881view=rev
Log:
backport 772997, 773322, 773342
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:17 AM, cove...@apache.org wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Tue May 12 13:17:29 2009
New Revision: 773881
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=773881view=rev
Log:
backport 772997, 773322, 773342 from trunk.
Reviewed By: jorton, rpluem, covener
Security fix for
16 matches
Mail list logo
