httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <>
Subject Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities
Date Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:46:04 GMT

On 09/20/2006 09:59 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>First of all I guess you mean: BEFORE the CACHE_SAVE filter :-).
>>Yes, there is a reason why we cannot do this: This would create a possible DoS, because
we have to
>>suck in the whole response first before actually forwarding it. Also this would not
work with flush
> Well, yes.  I stuck de-chunk in there as an afterthought (the original
> check just being a sanity check on the reported entity size to take care
> of that 0 length case).
> Why the DoS, though?  No reason to suck everything in first - my thought

I thought you wanted to use this as a prevention for the possible DoS that is prevented by

> was to update the headers a second time after the body was written.
> Only thing we need to hang on to is byte count and status (eg, headers

I am not sure if its allowed for the cache to change the transport encoding. If yes
I guess this makes sense.



View raw message