Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0C9B10D9F for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31191 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2014 06:36:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29703 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2014 06:36:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 29690 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2014 06:36:14 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:36:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [209.85.217.175] (HELO mail-lb0-f175.google.com) (209.85.217.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:36:06 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p9so1116771lbv.34 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:35:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=U4BwMlJTRrqgPafDjrOvafWD+cU1kGUahU9XCsEgYQA=; b=lau81c3JJx9wGiIL5nGPGqGqVt3bckOUrE+PgvDHwaJUWfrTEVxoARkaIuA0wJc8Xl 1gS7O12T5vCxgxMjC7R//twWAxIqLYj/YOqqayicVI4tNU1T0LwnPPfFWJyvvCnAxGub cqaq1eV3BhJYm864NSp81jpAFZY0PV4FkJtf2ljxIyU9HTj4scjCXglA4KMH6Z4YYogO HEyz5YJ2xkwxomTEnzbAQTpY/w7cFZWUkCSQvscM1KxmFpP4WTZ8SiHeXhzbNvob2MrI GBUnkl+gJfCoKuuT18OySYF5bN+z6TcQ/XtKYzhlkOvMM+/rRJRZVu24MiOg+WF7R6PF 0fHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6Cv2xP4ZIGqvmsFR9nua50IqaSwtmzKKv6cq9LRxHdxdV0N0qWzhlCLb8p6cBT1XRE0bv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.14.1 with SMTP id l1mr791624lbc.39.1390458945491; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.19.70 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:35:45 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [24.130.242.216] Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:35:45 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: mod_session and friends need some help From: Erik Pearson To: dev@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3733e85665904f09d7334 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c3733e85665904f09d7334 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I recently began using mod_session, mod_session_cookie, mod_session_crypto, and mod_auth_form (forgetting anyone?) in httpd 2.4.x to provide an authentication front end to a web app. In my efforts to meet requirements and solve session bugs I've needed to jump in and make a few changes to the source for those modules. There are some fairly basic logic and programming errors that need correction as well as enhancements. I am not a daily, weekly, or even monthly c programmer but I've muddled my way through. Some of those issues were raised recently by myself in bugzilla: ap_session_load called multiple times for expired session creates new session each time https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56052 should be able to disable session expiry increment https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56041 should be able to remove Max-Age cookie parameter to enable "session" cookies https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56040 mod_session excludes not processed correctly https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038 I am prepared to sooner than later submit the changes as patches, after I've had a chance to make sure they work, clean up the code and comments, and find some time. I for sure need these changes, otherwise mod_session and friends are just not usable. I understand all patches should be submitted through bugzilla. I really have to jam through these changes for a current project, so it would be difficult to submit a patch for each issue. Would it be acceptable to submit a related set of patches to code and documentation, accompanied by a comment or document that describes the whys and wherefores? Would that make the process of patch evaluation too complicated? If anyone is interested in discussing mod_session issues on this forum or privately I'm happy to entertain. There was a recent thread on the list "Re: unsetting encrypted cookies when encryption key changes" that is I believe addressed by one the changes. Thanks for your advice, Erik. --001a11c3733e85665904f09d7334 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
I recently began using mod_sessi= on, mod_session_cookie, mod_session_crypto, and mod_auth_form (forgetting a= nyone?) in httpd 2.4.x to provide an authentication front end to a web app.= In my efforts to meet requirements and solve session bugs I've needed = to jump in and make a few changes to the source for those modules. There ar= e some fairly basic logic and programming errors that need correction as we= ll as enhancements. I am not a daily, weekly, or even monthly c programmer = but I've muddled my way through.

Some of those issues were raised recently by myself in = bugzilla:

ap_session_load called multiple times fo= r expired session creates new session each time

should be able to disable session expiry incremen= t

should be able to remove Max-Age cookie parameter= to enable "session" cookies

mod_session excludes not processed correctly
<= /div>
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D56038

I am prepared to sooner than later submit the changes a= s patches, after I've had a chance to make sure they work, clean up the= code and comments, and find some time. I for sure need these changes, othe= rwise mod_session and friends are just not usable.

I understand all patches should be submitted through bu= gzilla. I really have to jam through these changes for a current project, s= o it would be difficult to submit a patch for each issue. Would it be accep= table to submit a related set of patches to code and documentation, accompa= nied by a comment or document that describes the whys and wherefores? Would= that make the process of patch evaluation too complicated?

If anyone is interested in discussing mod_session issue= s on this forum or privately I'm happy to entertain. There was a recent= thread on the list "Re: unsetting encrypted cookies when encryption k= ey changes" that is I believe addressed by one the changes.

Thanks for your advice,=A0
Erik.
--001a11c3733e85665904f09d7334--