httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] PR 17629 and all that
Date Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:07:29 GMT
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 06:17:29PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
> > I'd spent some time working on exactly that approach, trying to 
> > answer that question.  But surprisingly the answer is "yes" - the 
> > subreq filter has ftype=AP_FTYPE_CONTENT_SET, so any filter 
> > registered with an ftype greater than that can be inserted and will 
> > work (so long as it doesn't depend on seeing EOS).
> 
> Ah. So deleting everything between r->output_filters and ap_subreq_core_filter
> will not delete too much (they all belong to the subrequest), but we may miss
> subrequest specific filters between ap_subreq_core_filter and the protocol
> output filters if not following your patch, correct?

Ah, I didn't mean to imply that sorry.  The subreq-specific (to be 
removed) filters and inherited (to be kept) filters can both appear 
either before or after the subreq filter in the subreq's filter chain. 
So yes, we do need to be sure to cull correctly after the subreq filter, 
but culling everything *before* it may in fact delete too much.

I don't have a test case added with an inherited filter before the 
subreq_core but I have been manually testing this one.

Thanks a lot for looking at this!

Regards, Joe

Mime
View raw message