Hello,
There are situations when Squid logs nothing to access.log after an
[abnormal] transaction termination. Such "stealthy" transactions may be
a security risk and an accounting problem.
ClientHttpRequest is responsible for logging most transactions but that
object is created only after the H
On 16/07/2016 2:40 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are situations when Squid logs nothing to access.log after an
> [abnormal] transaction termination. Such "stealthy" transactions may be
> a security risk and an accounting problem.
>
> ClientHttpRequest is responsible for loggi
Hello Amos,
2016-07-17 12:34 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries :
> can these URI be logged with url_regex ACLs on access_log lines?
No because ACLUrlStrategy::requiresRequest() returns true.
> why is pipeline.back() being checked instead of pipeline.front() ?
> [not saying its wrong yet, just asking for
On 07/17/2016 03:34 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 16/07/2016 2:40 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>> +// do not log connections that sent us no bytes (TODO: make
>> configurable)
>> +// do not log connections that closed after a transaction (those are
>> normal)
>> +// XXX: We assume
On 19/07/2016 2:52 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 07/17/2016 03:34 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 16/07/2016 2:40 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>>> +// do not log connections that sent us no bytes (TODO: make
>>> configurable)
>>> +// do not log connections that closed after a transacti
Addressed discussion concerns and refreshed the patch.
2016-07-19 8:13 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries :
> Is ftp_port traffic another one?
IMO this is not a case because Ftp::Server (similarly to Http::One::Server)
cares about inBuf consumtion and ClientHttpRequest objects creation.
Eduard.
Some fail
On 19/07/2016 11:56 p.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> Addressed discussion concerns and refreshed the patch.
>
> 2016-07-19 8:13 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
>> Is ftp_port traffic another one?
>
> IMO this is not a case because Ftp::Server (similarly to Http::One::Server)
> cares about inBuf consumt
2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries :
> Is this patch going to include the new config option to prevent logging
> the new things? or do it in a followup?
For now we are not planning to add this option(that is why initially the
patch did not perform logging for "no-bytes" connections).
Probab
On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> 2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
>> Is this patch going to include the new config option to prevent logging
>> the new things? or do it in a followup?
>
> For now we are not planning to add this option(that is why initially the
> patch
On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>> 2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
>>> Is this patch going to include the new config option to prevent logging
>>> the new things? or do it in a followup?
>>
>> For now we are not planning to
On 20/07/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>>> 2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
Is this patch going to include the new config option to prevent logging
the new things? or do it
> 2016-07-20 7:36 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries :
>On 20/07/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
> Is this patch going to include the new config opt
On 21/07/2016 2:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>> 2016-07-20 7:36 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
>>On 20/07/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> 2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
>
On 07/19/2016 10:36 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 20/07/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 07/19/2016 08:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2016 1:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
2016-07-19 16:17 GMT+03:00 Amos Jeffries:
> Is this patch going to include the new config opti
On 07/20/2016 09:06 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 21/07/2016 2:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>> Amos,
>> just to clarify: any more touches from my side?
> There are the bits where Alex and I agreed on a change. I think that was
> all cosmetic documentation stuff.
In summary:
1. Rename the e
2016-07-20 18:23 GMT+03:00 Alex Rousskov :
> On 07/20/2016 09:06 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > On 21/07/2016 2:44 a.m., Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> >> Amos,
> >> just to clarify: any more touches from my side?
>
> > There are the bits where Alex and I agreed on a change. I think
that was
> > all
On 07/20/2016 05:27 PM, Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
> We do not have a 'getter' for receivedFirstByte_. It easy to add it
> of course, but I assume the current receivedFirstByte() should be
> refactored then
and renamed. Adding a getter is not going to be easy, is outside your
project scope, and is
On 22/07/2016 4:52 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 05:27 PM, Eduard Bagdasaryan wrote:
>
>> We do not have a 'getter' for receivedFirstByte_. It easy to add it
>> of course, but I assume the current receivedFirstByte() should be
>> refactored then
>
> and renamed. Adding a getter is no
Applied to trunk as rev.14752 with some stub additions so "make check"
will build.
Amos
___
squid-dev mailing list
squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
19 matches
Mail list logo
