httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Griffin <...@ntplx.net>
Subject Re: Features requiring rebuild of server
Date Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:38:03 GMT
rbb@covalent.net wrote:

> I do not believe we want to enable all modules by default in the
> monolithic case.  Take the case of a sysadmin who reads about a security
> whole in Apache.  They take a quick look at their config, and see no
> mention of the module mentioned in the report.  They believe they are safe
> at this point.  If that module is actually compiled statically in all
> cases, then they may not be safe, but they may never know that.

Just out of curiosity, is there reason to believe that any of the modules are security holes
?  If so, is there reason to believe that they are security holes even if the configuration
doesn't make the code callable at runtime ?  Is the worry that there is some sort of buffer-overrun
hack which could cause this code to be executed in spite of an httpd.conf which disallows
it ?  Would suexec-type warnings and a facility to disable automatic building of optional
modules (which would not be the default) address the concerns of such sysadmins ?

To take a different tack, I get the impression from the 1.3.17 files that DSO is still somewhat
experimental.  How would the approach of making --enable-shared=all the default on platforms
for which DSO has been implemented go over ?  If not feasible at the moment, do you see this
happening once DSO is more mature ?  I'm not certain, but I think that most people running
Apache binaries out of the box are probably doing so on Linux, which supports DSO.  If the
default build for DSO-capable platforms built all of the modules, that would probably meet
my needs even if the monolithic case were out of the question.

The bottom line is that even if I have to tell customers that today you have to reinstall,
I can get back some credibility by saying that we have contributed code which will make this
unnecessary, the committers have accepted it, and we expect it to be in version xxx.  I'd
like to get some sense of whether the Apache Server community finds these changes acceptable
within the design framework, or whether I'd just be wasting my time submitting them.  Also,
I haven't worked in your code before, and would probably have to ask some questions, and I
don't want to be wasting people's time if the resulting work isn't something you'd consider
committing.

Thanks,
Frank




Mime
View raw message