httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Rumph <mike.ru...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Review of mod_proxy_http proposal for httpd 2.4.8
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:48:07 GMT
Hello Yann,

Thanks for your explanation.
Okay, that clears it up for me.

On 2/27/2014 1:36 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Hello Mike
> ,
>
> thanks for looking at this.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Mike Rumph <mike.rumph@oracle.com 
> <mailto:mike.rumph@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     I am trying to review the following mod_proxy_http proposal for
>     httpd 2.4.8:
>
>        * mod_proxy_http: Log an error when reading the request body fails.
>          trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1570598
>          2.4.x patch:  trunk works modulo next_number
>          +1: ylavic, jim
>
>     I have one question at this point.
>     r1570598 is listed as a follow up to http://svn.apache.org/r1538776 .
>
>
>     But r1538776 does not appear to have been backported to or
>     proposed for httpd 2.4.x.
>
>
> The backport is http://svn.apache.org/r1570324.
> ap_http_filter() in trunk and 2.4 are quite different and need a 
> different patch regarding incomplete body detection.
>
>     -
>     http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/chunk_filter.c?r1=1538776&r2=1538775&pathrev=1538776
>
>
>
> This one does not need to be backported, for now, since 
> https://svn.apache.org/r1480058 isn't (cf. -1 vote in 2.4.x/STATUS).
>
>     -
>     http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/modules/http/chunk_filter.c?view=markup
>
>
I did mean the link above.
It shows that the patch to chunk_filter.c in r1538776 was not applied to 
2.4.x.
But your explanation below makes sense.

Thanks,

Mike Rumph
> Do you mean 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_filters.c?r1=1538776&r2=1538775&pathrev=1538776

> ?
>
>
>     Do these two patches need to stay together (atomic)?
>
>
> mod_proxy in 2.4.x always uses HTTP_BAD_GATEWAY as error bucket when 
> response (body) forwarding fails.
> The ap_http_outerror_filter() and ap_http_chunk_filter() output 
> filters only need to detect that bucket to do the right thing.
> Hence 2.4.x needs no fix there.
>
> In trunk though, HTTP_GATEWAY_TIMEOUT is in the place and must be 
> handled like HTTP_BAD_GATEWAY.
> But this is not limited to the APR_INCOMPLETE error introduced by this 
> patch, maybe that could have been commited separately.
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
>


Mime
View raw message