httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ricardo Cantu <>
Subject Re: mod_fcgid
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:37:52 GMT
On Friday 25 September 2009 10:01:04 am William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ricardo Cantu wrote:
> > Came across something else in testing mod_fcgid. mod_fastcgi would
> > consider every symbolic link to the same program as a unique program and
> > would start it up based on the program name and not the inode/device
> > node. Since mod_fcgid only was checking inode/device node, symbolic links
> > were considered the same as the real program. Does anybody think that is
> > a needed behaviour? Why would you rename the program name and still want
> > to consider it the same program? Either way I made a patch that can
> > retain the old behaviour via a directive. If it's decided that the old
> > behaviour is unneeded I can take the directive out and make it respect
> > program name by default. I included the patch for review and if every
> > thing is cool I'll write the xml for the new directive.
> Under unix, programs often change behavior based on argv[0], so the patch
>  isn't really valid if the program filename isn't the same :(

That's the problem with mod_fcgid right now with out the patch.
argv[0] is different but mod_fcgid is not considering it different. It is 
lumping together by inode only and not paying attention to basename (argv[0]).
Which can be different when using symbolic links. 
The patch is so it can properly respect your statement.
> Under unix, programs often change behavior based on argv[0]

Here's the problem. If you have two different programs. Program1 and Program2. 
They will have separate FCGIDDefaultMaxClassProcessCount which is correct.
If you have one program: Program1 and then:

Computer Services
Ricardo Cantu
Vice President

Home office
3506 Buchanan St Suite C
Wichita Falls, TX 76308
(940) 696-3010

El Paso branch
1644 Ronnie Reif Dr.
El Paso, TX 79936
(915) 219-7119

View raw message