httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo>
Subject Forward port Require file-owner/file-group; need review and help ;-)
Date Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:13:22 GMT
that functionality was not ported into 2.x yet.
For summary look at the attachment, please ;-)

I've created a module "mod_authz_owner", which basically ports the 
functionality, but with some enhancements. Both requirements should work on 
every system where APR_HAS_USER. (or at least throw an appropriate error 
message - think of the differences between Win9x, WinNT, 2k etc.)

The goal of the module is to do all the neccessary file system work to 
figure out username and groupname. "Require file-owner" is completely 
resolved within the module. "file-group" is only determined there and the 
groupname will be extracted from the stat call and stored within the 
r->notes. Done that, the module will decline, so that the group database 
modules (mod_authz_groupfile, mod_authz_dbm) can verify the groupname with 
their lists.
Thus every group module that supports the file-group requirement must be 
hooked after mod_authz_owner. They have to recognize "file-group" and read 
the groupname from r->notes. (If there's no name stored, the modules ignore 
the file-group requirement). The backstopper module will do its work in 
worst case.

However, there are some problems, that need help and further review:
- is that note principle ok (in concept?) or is there a better way to 

- I defined slightly different semantics of AuthzOwnerAuthoritative.
  It acts as "file-owner" and "file-group" were defined in different 
  modules. So if set to On, only one of them will be recognized and if it 
  fails, a 401 response will happen. If Off, both may be recognized and the 
  best match will be done.
  I'm not sure, whether this is good or bad, opinions are desired :)

- the module doesn't work as one could expect if the file doesn't exist in 
  the first request round (consider MutliViews) (the 1.3 version has the 
  same problem). I played around with some subrequest techniques, but got 
  no helpful result. Is there any magic to recognize the actual resulting 
  filename? Or can we safely send OK if the file doesn't exist (instead of 

- generally - are there any style issues, I have violated? ;-)

TIA, nd
Da fällt mir ein, wieso gibt es eigentlich in Unicode kein
"i" mit einem Herzchen als Tüpfelchen? Das wär sooo süüss!
                                 -- Björn Höhrmann in darw

View raw message