httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: snprintf and release schedule
Date Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:00:24 GMT
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Randy Terbush wrote:
> > 
> > > We need a couple of people to do an in-depth review of my buffer overflow
> > > fixes.  Until that happens, we can't start preparations for the next beta
> > > which, according to one of our schedules that I am hoping to stick to,
> > > should be going out on Tuesday or so.  No, it isn't fun work reviewing
> > > such boring changes but someone has to do it. 
> > 
> > I intend to give this some time today Marc.
> > 
> > > If people agree with my last comments on the lingering close stuff, I
> > > think those changes (ie. rip out all lingering close stuff, add a
> > > shutdown() before close() in child_main) should also go in the next beta. 
> > > 
> > 
> > I think that maybe a more customizable conn_close() that does not
> > do the half-close would be my vote.
> > 
> Right now, without lingering_close, child_main simply calls bclose.
> We could either adjust bclose() to do the shutdown() if SYSV4
> or else create conn_close that does the shutdown if needed and
> then calls bclose.

I think that in this case perhaps just adding a shutdown() in child_main
before bclose() would be best.  I don't think we want to do a shutdown if
the connection is aborted, but only if it exits normally in child_main; 
if a connection is closed for any reason other than reaching the end of
the main child_main loop, we don't want the TCP stack to continue to try
to deliver data.  

I'm not sure it is worth adding a conn_close because it would only be used
in one place.

I will put together some patches the way I would suggest doing things and
submit them for comments.

View raw message