httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: logio problem with SSL
Date Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:44:43 GMT
++1

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com>
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Joe Orton [mailto:jorton@redhat.com]
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. September 2015 12:47
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: logio problem with SSL
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:50:04AM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> two logs (http/https) sorted to top of autoindex here:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~covener/
>>>> 
>>>> Looks like mod_ssl should also forward EOR buckets.
>>>> 
>>>> Does this work:
>>>> Index: modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c    (revision 1705160)
>>>> +++ modules/ssl/ssl_engine_io.c    (working copy)
>>>> @@ -1707,12 +1707,12 @@ static apr_status_t
>> ssl_io_filter_output(ap_filter
>>> 
>>> I committed this one in r1705194, and also the one preventing the
>>> FLUSH for non-blocking bio_filter_in_read() in r1705236.
>>> You may not want to apply the latter, for your testing path to be
>>> consistent with what you had so far...
>> 
>> The behaviour of that loop is quite bad, it will treat a single brigade
>> like <EOS EOC> differently to two separate brigades <EOS> <EOC>,
>> although that should never happen in practice... currently.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what the "correct" behaviour of connection-level filters
>> should be with metadata buckets.  I could argue they should delete
>> everything they don't understand.  mod_ssl should not care at all about
>> EOS or EOR.
>> 
>> But dodging that issue... simplifying the loop like this, does that
>> still work for the logio issue?
> 
> Haven't looked at the logio issue, but this makes sense. +1. The previous different handling
> of the buckets depending on whether they are split across two brigades or just in one
seems wrong.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rüdiger
> 


Mime
View raw message