httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Kobes <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATE] libapreq2 2.08-RC4
Date Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:21:42 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Randy Kobes wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Steve Hay wrote:
>> Yes, that works for me!  I tried the individual test and the whole test 
>> suite dozens of times over and didn't get a single failure. I'm not sure 
>> how it makes any difference, though, or exactly what it does.  I searched 
>> the whole of my httpd-2.2.2 folder and only found one use of it (actually, 
>> of its new name, APR_FOPEN_SHARELOCK) relating to sdbm files. What am I 
>> missing?
> I'm baffled now, too - as far as I can see too, apr
> only uses APR_FOPEN_SHARELOCK in sdbm files, and neither
> mod_perl nor librapreq2 seems to use it. But it does
> make a difference - although I don't see as many
> failures as you do, without APR_FOPEN_SHARELOCK I
> definitely get temp files left over.
>> Is the change safe, or does it introduce any security issues with temporary 
>> spool files being shared somehow?
> That I'm not sure of, especially now that I'm not sure
> what it's affecting ...

I still haven't been able to track down why the use
of APR_FOPEN_SHARELOCK works in cleaning up the temp
files. I did try a simple C apr-based program that just
opens a temp file in the same way as is done
within apreq_file_mktemp(), with the registered
apreq_file_cleanup(), writes some random text to
it, and then closes it - in this the temp files
were cleaned up with or without APR_FOPEN_SHARELOCK,
and also with or without APR_FILE_NOCLEANUP.
So something more complex is involved.

Nevertheless, unless someone objects in the next
day or so, I'd like to commit this change, as I
think leaving temp files lying around is a worse

best regards,

View raw message