Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55535F91.2010805@gmail.com>
References: <20150512185930.2215BAC09F8@hades.apache.org>
	<CAKQ1sVN2eEaoUR2se39e+WUqmcWmFhL8FkqVNwc26G0zbbFOqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55526794.3030908@gmail.com>
	<555344D2.7030609@gmail.com>
	<CAKQ1sVN2uejmKJO3O4REvqJCNJEyFn36TgaADPNzCkRx_Z6z3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55535F91.2010805@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 16:51:58 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQ1sVP0xmSxqvNdiuH_4Qb+-3CwZaXj4FJgAfaDTZFVsk=+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1679032 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
 docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c
 modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c
 modules/ssl/ssl_private.h modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c
From: Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com>
To: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 08:59 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks again!
>>
>> You're welcome ;)
>>
>> WDYT of the following?
>> (cosmetic only, but helps read/reuse-ability a bit)
>>
>> Index: modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c    (revision 1679195)
>> +++ modules/ssl/ssl_util_stapling.c    (working copy)
>> @@ -250,13 +250,11 @@ static BOOL stapling_cache_response(server_rec *s,
>>
>>       i2d_OCSP_RESPONSE(rsp, &p);
>>
>> -    if (mc->stapling_cache->flags & AP_SOCACHE_FLAG_NOTMPSAFE)
>> -        stapling_cache_mutex_on(s);
>> +    stapling_cache_mutex_on(s);
>>       rv = mc->stapling_cache->store(mc->stapling_cache_context, s,
>>                                      cinf->idx, sizeof(cinf->idx),
>>                                      expiry, resp_der, stored_len, pool);
>> -    if (mc->stapling_cache->flags & AP_SOCACHE_FLAG_NOTMPSAFE)
>> -        stapling_cache_mutex_off(s);
>> +    stapling_cache_mutex_off(s);
>
>
> At the moment I very slightly prefer seeing the reminder that there isn't
> always a mutex, but I won't care before long.  I prefer that this matches
> the implementation of the session cache mutex on where the socache flag is
> checked, but if it makes you happy and you change the session cache
> equivalent to match then go for it :)

Nope, I have no strong opinion either, let's keep it as is, that makes sense.