httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Rumph <>
Subject Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:38:57 GMT
Hello Jim,

I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple 
of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8.

If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache 
httpd 2.4.8,
then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering:

     - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first 
presented over a year ago.
     - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process 
RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses.

     - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered 
while studying mod_remoteip.c.

     - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr.
     - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some 
unlikely use cases.

     - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the 
client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic.

I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here.


Mike Rumph

On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> "defect"?
> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
> reason to not include it where we say it is, and
> where we see it works.
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
>> Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <> wrote:
>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
>>> currently isn't supported.
>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
>> a release branch.
>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support?  Or the 2.4.8 tag?
>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?

View raw message