httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2002 13:16:14 GMT
>
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 05:15:34PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > This patch breaks the proxy.  Specifically, anyone who uses
ap_proxy_make_fake_req().  Get
> > > a seg fault in ap_get_limit_req_body because r->per_dir_config is NULL.
 I'll spend
some
> > > time on this tomorrow unless someone wants to jump on it tonight.
> >
> > Is it valid for r->per_dir_config to be null?  Hmm.  I wonder if
> > ap_get_limit_req_body should be fixed to handle this case instead
> > of ap_http_filter?  -- justin
>
> No.  It's entirely invalid.
>
> At the very least - you are looking the r->server->lookup_defaults, plus the
> <Location > sections in per_dir_config.
>
> That's always true, anything that changes that assumption is broken.  Now if
> either proxy or your patch skips the initial <Location > lookup (or it is
> otherwise circumvented) then you get what you pay for.

It's not that clear to me what the right solution should be. Checkout
ap_proxy_http_process_response(). This function reads the -response- from the proxied
server and dummies up a request_rec to do so. So is this a valid approach or not? If it
is, then we do not need to do location/directory walks (and it is fine if
r->per_dir_config is NULL.

Bill


Mime
View raw message