httpd-bugs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43965] - Exim is taking apache port (apache problem)
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:05:04 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43965





------- Additional Comments From agne@hard.lt  2007-12-04 13:05 -------
Please take a look at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=38915:

[4 Dec 6:43pm UTC] crescentfreshpot at yahoo dot com

Just to add to the dialog, Apache 1.x seems to have tried to address the
issue of leaked FDs itself. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_1.3
says:

Changes with Apache 1.3.28

*) Certain 3rd party modules would bypass the Apache API and not
   invoke ap_cleanup_for_exec() before creating sub-processes.
   To such a child process, Apache's file descriptors (lock
   fd's, log files, sockets) were accessible, allowing them
   direct access to Apache log file etc.  Where the OS allows,
   we now add proactive close functions to prevent these file
   descriptors from leaking to the child processes.

As far as I understand the above, apache thinks it can know when
[mod_]php does a system-level popen() and cleanup the parent FDs before
exec(). Is that actually possible?

[4 Dec 7:14pm UTC] stas@php.net

I think that's exactly what FD_CLOEXEC does.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message