httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject MPM modules vs "normal" modules (was: cvs commit: ...)
Date Sat, 24 Jun 2000 08:33:03 GMT
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:13:56AM -0400, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 02:18:28PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > I think there should be. It isn't like MPMs need configuration merging.
> > Seriously: what MPM is going to be hooking *ANY* of the request processing
> > hooks? IMO, they shouldn't. Separating the types will clarify that.
> I won't necessarily agree or disagree with you on this point; I'll
> just propose a scenario, which is suexec.
> suexec is a Unix only thing. It uses User and Group directives (soon
> to be SuexecUser and SuexecGroup to lessen confusion). These need
> merging. In addition, there will be data from request processing that
> determines which user suexec decides on. One example is
> <http://server/~user/blah.cgi>.
> Now, how should this be done properly. The patch I sent out earlier
> did this with a unix-only module called mod_suexec and a new
> ap_create_privileged_process function that uses the suexec binary. The
> hints from mod_userdir would be implemented using the notes table.
> However, I've been pondering the possibility that the proper place for
> this is unixd, and that means the MPM would be doing this. This is
> process management after all. What do you think?

My impression was that MPMs handled accept processing. Other kinds of
processing "should" go elsewhere.


Greg Stein,

View raw message