httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] IPLookups (revisited)
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:08:58 GMT
Chris Monson wrote:

> I still want to know whether it makes sense to change the entries in
> proxy_util.c, 

what does "change the entries in proxy_util.c" mean?

> and that requires a little discussion as to whether a
> request_rec pointer should be required in the ap_get_iplookup_flags
> function or not.  Currently it is required so that we can allow for
> per-directory configuration of IPLookups (which may seem like overkill,
> but I am thinking of mod_rewrite and friends that may want to use it to
> do things on a per-directory basis).

does anybody else have an opinion here?  I'm guessing it isn't 
necessary, but I don't have a good feel

> + AP_DECLARE(apr_int32_t) ap_get_iplookup_flags(request_rec *r)

I would like us to create an interface that allows "IPLookups 
IPv[46]Only" to be possible with some follow-on enhancements, so
I think this needs to tell the caller two things:

   what family to pass to apr_sockaddr_info_get
   what flags to turn on for apr_sockaddr_info_get

If the conf file says

   IPLookups All

     returned family is APR_UNSPEC, returned flag is 0

   IPLookups IPv4OK

     returned family is APR_UNSPEC, returned flag is APR_IPV4_ADDR_OK

   IPLookups IPv6OK

     returned family is APR_UNSPEC, returned flag is APR_IPV6_ADDR_OK

and after future enhancement

   IPLookups IPv4Only

     returned family is APR_INET, returned flag is 0

   IPLookups IPv6Only

     returned family is APR_INET6, returned flag is 0

so no return code, and two apr_int32_t * parameters after request_rec *

View raw message