Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 01:07:51 +0000
From: James Ponder <james@squish.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: trouble w/ perchild MPM
Message-ID: <20021127010751.B16549@snowy.squish.net>
References: <20021126071452.GB333@metux.de>
 <m3u1i4y1py.fsf@rdu74-177-063.nc.rr.com>
 <20021127003509.A16549@snowy.squish.net> <20021126194434.V5320@sventech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20021126194434.V5320@sventech.com>;
 from johannes@erdfelt.com on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 07:44:34PM -0500

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 07:44:34PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> This can include shared (sometimes requiring connections to be passed)
> and non shared (always answered by the child) sockets.
> 
> I don't particularly see the non shared case as a concern. The shared
> case can be a problem.
> 
> If either are a problem, I suspect that perchild is not the MPM you want
> to use.

Perhaps perchild can be improved further to have a set of listener
processes/threads, under the generic apache user id or another secured id,
which accepts connections but does not process them.  These threads then
pass the connections on to the correct user-owned child id via the named
sockets, allowing these child users to have no listening sockets at all
(except the unix domain socket).


Best wishes, James
-- 
James Ponder; www.squish.net; London, UK