httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: mod_deflate DoS using HEAD
Date Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:37:32 GMT
On 6/21/2010 4:00 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, Rüdiger's patch may be better for caching but uses 
> more CPU cycles. But it uses way less CPU than no patch at all. 
> Therefore I propose to include that patch unless there is clear 
> consensus that Eric's patch is to be preferred.

Not a significant number, and Rüdiger's patch gathered +1's from myself,
gregames, nick is on the wall with a +.5 - I think your question is to
Rüdiger, with the emphasis on 'what is your decision?' based on this
last rather indecisive posting.


On 7/16/2009 9:24 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
>>
>> For a large static file, Ruedigers patch suppresses the C-L entirely
>> (it gets added back in down the chain for my patch, for static files
>> at least) which I thought would make that prefered, if we're confident
>> that we'll never do more than a zlib buffer worth of work the first
>> go-round.
>
> Good point. So your patch would invalidate a cached entity if the
> response to a GET delivered a C-L header, since HEAD and GET would
> deliver different C-L headers.
> OTOH I think only very small or extremely compressable responses (whether
> static or not) would have a C-L in the response to a GET, because everything
> that exceeeds a zlib buffer would be delivered chunked anyway.



Mime
View raw message