httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: ap_sub_req_lookup_dirent
Date Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:53:00 GMT
Huh?  "Additional information not already available" ???

Try authn/authz, for one.  Or, how about "Do we have a handler that
can handle this resource?"  Or, 'hmm... <Files .bak> are never to be
served.

We must run the entire process_request_internal to know that a file
listed in autoindex is servable.

If you wanted a toggle for the operator to say, "Hey, who cares, give
me back the CPU cycle and they can see anything I'm foolish enough
to put in those directories!!!", I'd be +1 for such a directive.  And skip
the lookup altogether.

But that's -only- by choice, it should not be the default for the obvious
security-related reasons.

But you aren't describing anything that fancyindexing on 1.3 didn't
already do.  No surprise here.

Bill

At 11:48 AM 3/13/2002, you wrote:
>ap_process_request_internal() is called at the very end of 
>ap_sub_req_lookup() and I don't
>see that it is providing any additional information that is not already 
>available prior to
>the call (ie, we already have stat'ed the file and know all the finfo 
>required by the
>caller). The only useful thing that I see happening is authentication. 
>Otherwise, we do
>not want to run translate_name or most of the other hooks as far as I can 
>see...
>
>Bill
>
> > We call that function in all of the ap_sub_req_lookup functions.  The
> > purpose is to run all of the hooks that are required for creating a
> > request successfully.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> > > What is the purpose of calling ap_process_request_internal() in
> > > ap_sub_req_lookup_dirent()?
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> >



Mime
View raw message