httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Fix settings options with ProxyPassMatch
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:27:55 GMT
Yes, selecting the right worker is all in ap_proxy_get_worker(), but
probably also add_pass() and proxysection() would need something like
ap_proxy_define_wildcard_worker() to register this kind of worker
(save the original name, ...).

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Just a thought, but wouldn't the better place to "fix" this
> be in ap_proxy_get_worker()??
>
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> oups, sorry for the numbering.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jan Kalu┼ża <jkaluza@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/18/2014 02:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be possible to define wildcard workers when the URL is
>>>>>> known to be a regexp substitution?
>>>>>> For these workers' URLs, the dollars (plus the following digit) could
>>>>>> be replaced by a wildcard (ie. *) and ap_proxy_get_worker() could
then
>>>>>> use ap_strcasecmp_match() against the requested URL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant ap_strcmp_match(), this has to be case sensitive...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've implemented your idea. Can you check the attached patch please? It
>>>> fixes the original PR and also ProxyPassMatch with UDS for me.
>>>>
>>>> If it's OK, I will commit it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I took a deeper look into this but I'm afraid it is a more complex
>>> story actually...
>>>
>>> 1. Workers can be defined in <Proxy[Match] ...> sections too.
>>> The same should probably be done in proxysection().
>>>
>>> 2. Both '*' and '?' are legitimate URL chars.
>>> We need a way to escape the original ones in the configured worker's
>>> URL, but ap_strcmp_match doesn't handle (un)escaping.
>>> So maybe new ap_matchexp_[un]escape() and ap_str[case]cmp_ematch()
>>> functions should be implemented.
>>>
>>> 5. When no $ is used in the worker's URL, an implicit $1 is appended
>>> by proxy_trans().
>>> Hence
>>>   ProxyPassMatch /some/path/with(/capture) http://some.host
>>> is equivalent to
>>>   ProxyPassMatch /some/path/with(/capture) http://some.host$1
>>> So an implicit '*' should be appended to the worker's wildcard URL in
>>> the first case (maybe only when the match has a capture but this is
>>> just an optimization, * would match empty).
>>>
>>> 3. I think we should mark the worker as wildcard when it is defined by
>>> ProxyPassMatch or a <ProxyMatch> section.
>>> So that ap_proxy_get_worker() won't use the costly ap_strcmp_match()
>>> for "normal" workers, and won't either trigger false positives due to
>>> '*' or '?' in the configured URL (which is not escaped).
>>>
>>> 4. What about the same URL used both with ProxyPass and
>>> ProxyPassMatch, same worker or different ones?
>>> IMHO, they should be different workers, and by rewritting the URL to a
>>> wildcard one as done in the patch they will be, but we lose the
>>> configured name, and eg. the balancer-manager's param "w" would now
>>> work only with the rewritten name (which is, at least, non intuitive).
>>> A new balancer-manager's param could be added to access wildcard
>>> workers (eg. "ww"), since they are different they may be accessed
>>> separately, hence I think we need to save the original URL for such
>>> case(s).
>>> So maybe for point 2.'s mark we could use the configured (original)
>>> URL as a new member of the proxy_worker struct (I don't see any reason
>>> for it to be shared in proxy_worker_shared but one may object...).
>>> This new field would be NULL for "normal" workers.
>>>
>>> 5. What about wildcard balancers (ProxyPassMatch /foo(/.*)
>>> balancer://mycluster/bar$1)?
>>> Since the balancers are registered/selected solely by their names
>>> (path and everything after is ignored), and then their workers are
>>> selected according to the balancer's method (the path still does not
>>> matter), I think there is no matching issue here (the requested path,
>>> eventually rewritten by proxy_trans(), will finally be appended to the
>>> worker's URL as is).
>>> Hence the same balancer's URL used both in ProxyPass and
>>> ProxyPassMatch can refer to the same balancer (IMHO).
>>> Nothing to be done therefore, but I may be missing something...
>>>
>>> 6. ProxyPassReverseMatch would be welcome too, but that's probably
>>> another story...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Yann.
>>
>

Mime
View raw message