httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Eibner <>
Subject [1.3] Proxy fixes and FWD: Re: [apache-modules] Setting bytes_sent in Request Record while generating all headers by myself in Apache 1.3]
Date Wed, 29 May 2002 16:28:24 GMT
Anyone looked at the remaining open bugs in 1.3 and might want to include
this patch (and bug)?

Would it also be possible to have mod_proxy for 1.3 set the same
X-Forwarded-* headers as the 2.0 proxy does? Need patches for this?

----- Forwarded message from Anthony Howe <> -----

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:23:00 +0200
From: Anthony Howe <>
Subject: Re: [apache-modules] Setting bytes_sent in Request Record while generating
 all headers by myself in Apache 1.3
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020523
MIME-Version: 1.0

Thomas Eibner wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:21:59PM +0200, Anthony Howe wrote:
>>Are you using Apache 1.3? Are you using mod_proxy? I submitted a long 
>>time ago a patch to Apache to fix a bug in mod_proxy, which fails to 
>>update the bytes_sent field. Don't know if they ever included it, but I 
>>have it still if required.
> Why not check up on wheter it actually was included/fixed and then submit
> a patch if it is still broken? Otherwise it will never make it into the
> 1.3 branch (which btw is having it's last release very soon now.)

Well from what I can tell from just looking at 1.3.24, they STILL 
haven't included the patch.

I'm sure I already submitted the patch sometime ago, 14 Nov 2000, old 
bug database number 6841, and its STILL open.

I figure if they can't address a one line patch when it was submitted 
then, why should I keep pushing for something only to be ignored. 
Obviously someone doesn't think my input is worth anything or that my 
patch breaks something else. I figured I was doing my part by submitting 
the bug in the first place.

Oh hum.


Full text of PR number 6841:

Received: (qmail 3213 invoked by uid 501); 14 Nov 2000 14:17:09 -0000
Message-Id: <>
Date: 14 Nov 2000 14:17:09 -0000
From: Anthony Howe <>
Subject: mod_proxy does not maintain the request_rec->bytes_sent field.
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.110

 >Number:         6841
 >Category:       mod_proxy
 >Synopsis:       mod_proxy does not maintain the 
request_rec->bytes_sent field.
 >Confidential:   no
 >Severity:       non-critical
 >Priority:       medium
 >Responsible:    apache
 >State:          open
 >Class:          sw-bug
 >Submitter-Id:   apache
 >Arrival-Date:   Tue Nov 14 06:20:01 PST 2000
 >Release:        1.3.14
Linux 2.0.34C52_SK #1 Tue Nov 30 18:14:40 PST 1999 mips 
A user reported a bug against mod_throttle claiming that mod_throttle 
failed to
record the number of bytes sent when the request passed through mod_proxy.
Apon debugging and examination of the mod_proxy source, I found that
ap_proxy_send_fb() tracked and returned the number of bytes received/sent,
but that NO ONE made use of the return value to update the request_rec's
bytes_sent field.

Find enclosed a one line change to src/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c that 
the request_rec.

By making the change in ap_proxy_send_fb(), http and ftp response from the
remote server or from the cache will all correctly update the request_rec
so that other modules can make use of this information in the logging phase.


*** proxy_util.c.orig	Tue Nov 14 14:34:42 2000
--- proxy_util.c	Tue Nov 14 14:49:25 2000
*** 618,623 ****
--- 618,626 ----

+ 	r->bytes_sent += total_bytes_rcvd;
       return total_bytes_rcvd;

  [In order for any reply to be added to the PR database, you need]
  [to include <apbugs@Apache.Org> in the Cc line and make sure the]
  [subject line starts with the report component and number, with ]
  [or without any 'Re:' prefixes (such as "general/1098:" or      ]
  ["Re: general/1098:").  If the subject doesn't match this       ]
  [pattern, your message will be misfiled and ignored.  The       ]
  ["apbugs" address is not added to the Cc line of messages from  ]
  [the database automatically because of the potential for mail   ]
  [loops.  If you do not include this Cc, your reply may be ig-   ]
  [nored unless you are responding to an explicit request from a  ]
  [developer.  Reply only with text; DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS!     ]


Anthony C Howe                            +33 6 11 89 73 78     ICQ: 7116561      AIM: Sir Wumpus
"Microsoft (cough, sputter, spit, !@#$%) ..."

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

----- End forwarded message -----

  Thomas Eibner <> DnsZone <>
  mod_pointer <> <>
  !(C)<>                  <>
          Putting the HEST in .COM <>

View raw message