Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-bugs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 37092 invoked by uid 500); 22 May 2002 09:24:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" Delivered-To: mailing list bugs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 37081 invoked from network); 22 May 2002 09:24:07 -0000 Date: 22 May 2002 09:24:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20020522092419.26375.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: bugs@httpd.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 9038] - suexec is NOT being called by Apache 2.0.36 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9038 suexec is NOT being called by Apache 2.0.36 ------- Additional Comments From colmmacc@redbrick.dcu.ie 2002-05-22 09:24 ------- If you are strictly using DSO for mod_cgid then yes, not using LoadModule should fix it. Simple not specifying --enable-cgid and enureing you don't use a threaded mpm on one of the cgid preferred platforms is also enough. mod_suexec is a different matter. mod_suexec is the module which handles the SuexecUserGroup directive, it also spits out the initial "Suexec mechanism enabled" line in error_log, but that's all it does. If you built with --enable-suexec then mod_userdir will still have an id_doer hook. This means that when the cgi is executed suexec will still be used, regardless of mod_suexec being loaded or not. Personally I don't consider it a bug, since you specify --enable-suexec at configure time .. but it could do with being documented. The surefire way to stop this behaviour is to delete the suexec binary. Without the binary suexec_enabled will not be set by the unix specific code and mod_userdir will not try to use it. You don't say wether you are experiencing the bug with mod_cgi, you shouldnt be with 2.0.36, I can't replicate it. I can't replicate with the patch applied either with mod_cgid. What's the current status of this ? Are you experiencing the bug ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org