httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/server core.c
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2002 16:14:11 GMT
On Thursday 03 January 2002 05:16 am, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > > 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.

We must be able to dummy up request_rec structures in order to use filters
that aren't attached to a request.  I believe that r->per_dir_config should be
allowed to be NULL.

Ryan

______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom				rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies			rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message