httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] mod_ssl input filtering...
Date Sat, 06 Oct 2001 04:14:59 GMT
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:39:47PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Friday 05 October 2001 03:34 pm, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Now PLEASE understand that maxbytes 0 (originally, the -1 idea) doesn't
> > say 'read everything from this socket' --- it leaves the best-fit for
> > the underlying filter to decide.  If core wants to give back an even
> > number of IP frames, then fine.  If SSL wants to give back an even
> > number of decoded SSL packets, also fine.  It will not mean read until
> > EOS, ever.  It's up to the underlying filter to decide what is optimal
> > for max 0, without allocating a bunch of otherwise useless frame buffers.
> >
> > And the more that I look at this, the more we need a push-back model,
> > because the scope of 'this' filter doesn't live as long as the parent
> > filter (with request and connection scopes, respectively.)
> A push-back model is not needed.  A filter should not be passing back more
> data than the parent can use for this request.  If we need to push data back,
> then there is a problem.  When asks for X bytes of data, it is taking 
> responsibility for using all X bytes.

I *strongly* agree with Ryan here. Pushback is *not* needed.

If filters want to have a read mode of "give me a 'nice' amount", then that
is a separate question. (and the HTTP_IN will determine 'nice' based on
request boundaries)

But if a filter ever says <X> bytes, then f->next *cannot* ever return more
than that amount.

IMO, we ought to fix mod_ssl and proxy before worrying about optimizing for
"return a nice amount".


Greg Stein,

View raw message