httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject AW: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on Windows.
Date Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:29:46 GMT


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic.dev@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 16:28
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on
> Windows.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
> <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic.dev@gmail.com]
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Oktober 2015 16:07
> >> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [users@httpd] Chunked transfer delay with httpd 2.4 on
> >> Windows.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This looks like there is a stray \n in the input queue that causes
> >> httpd to think that there is a pipelined request.
> >>
> >> I think we should tolerate blank lines in check_pipeline(), like
> >> read_request_line() does (this is also a RFC compliance).
> >>
> >> How about the following patch?
> >
> > In general this looks good, but why not moving the max_blank_lines
> logic
> > into check_pipeline using c->server->limit_req_fields, so that we do
> not need to change
> > its prototype?
> 
> Hmm, check_pipeline() is static, why bother?
> Also c->base_server may be different than r->server (after the first
> request), and we probably want to use the value from the last
> request's vhost (a bit like we did already for keep_alive_timeout).
> 

OK. Fair enough.

Regards

Rüdiger
Mime
View raw message