httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: 2.2.12 ?
Date Fri, 01 May 2009 22:21:52 GMT
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 05/01/2009 07:11 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>> I hope to get the SNI patches summarized in a backportable
>>> way by then to have them included in 2.2.12.
>> Didn't want to rush things, but since there were no objections to the
>> recent trunk commits so far - here's an updated backport for 2.2
>> (including your improvements from March/April, see revision list at the
>> top of the file):
> Thanks for this. Especially the list of revision numbers will be
> very helpful for the further process.

I have only one small concern about adopting this.  Consider the diversity
of installations which users install httpd onto.

--- httpd-2.2.x/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c	(revision 768694)
+++ httpd-2.2.x/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c	(working copy)
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ static const command_rec ssl_config_cmds[] = {
                 "Use the server's cipher ordering preference")
     SSL_CMD_ALL(UserName, TAKE1,
                 "Set user name to SSL variable value")
+    SSL_CMD_SRV(StrictSNIVHostCheck, FLAG,
+                "Strict SNI virtual host checking")

This provides no clue why the directive fails.  I'm not fond of conditional
compilation of directives.

If we can ensure the StrictSNIVHostCheck always exists, but exits when it
is not supported with;

    return "StrictSNIVHostCheck failed; OpenSSL is not built with support "
           "for TLS extensions and SNI indication.  Refer to the "
           "documentation, and build a compatible version of openssl";
... usual stuff

Does this make better sense to avoid user complaints?

View raw message