httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luca Toscano <>
Subject Re: [Bug 56188] mod_proxy_fcgi does not send FCGI_ABORT_REQUEST on client disconnect
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:17:53 GMT
2017-01-30 15:15 GMT+01:00 Yann Ylavic <>:

> Hi Luca,
> continuing on dev@...
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:42 AM,  <> wrote:
> >
> []
> >
> > My question was if there was any corner case in which if, after a client
> has
> > initiated a TCP connection close, mod-proxy-fcgi wrongly assume that the
> > connection dropped (because of POLLIN and EOF) taking its own remediation
> > (error logs, etc..).
> I think so, think about pipelined requests (or TLS-only data).
> >
> > In this case I am wondering if my patch would introduce a performance
> > regression for use cases like big requests coming in (like POSTs for
> example).
> In the above case, your patch would possibly loop endlessly because
> nothing empties the socket, or pulls pfd[1] out from the pollset.
> > We don't really care about reading those bytes (in the code introduced
> by my
> > patch) but only to check if the connection with the client is still up,
> so
> > there might be a better way to approach the issue.
> It could be achievable, but not easy, with care taken to pull the
> client's socket out of the pollset if anything but an error or a
> connection/TLS close is detected.
> It probably also shouldn't start before "last_stdin" is true.
> Client side poll() may return with either:
> 1. HTTP data (pipelined) => client still alive, non-empty/meta brigade
> => don't abort
> 2. TCP close or reset => bucket EOS or an APR_E* (though
> speculative-non-blocking reads won't return EOS, and may turn EOF into
> SUCCESS with empty brigade!) => abort
> 3. TLS close notify => EOS/EOF? => abort
> 4. TLS renegociation => rejected by httpd (since initiated by the
> client) => an APR_E* => abort
> n. ...
> Probably not an exhaustive list...

Thanks a lot for the list! I am not familiar with all the use cases that
you brought up but it feels to me that the mod_proxy_fcgi patch could bring
more headaches than benefits..

> BTW, if the client connection is closed under us, why don't we keep
> detecting it on write (pass_brigade) while forwarding the response?
> We'd want, for good reasons, to be active between the time the request
> is sent to the backend and the response arrives?

The use case that I had (the one that caused me to check the original
bugzilla task/patch and work on it) was a long running PHP script (running
on HHVM) that wasn't returning anything until the end of the job (minutes),
causing mod-proxy-fcgi to keep waiting even if the client disconnected. In
the beginning I also thought that there was a way to "signal" the FCGI
backend to stop whatever was doing (FCGI_ABORT), but it turned out to be
not widely implemented (at least from what I have checked, more info in
bugzilla). Timeout and ProxyTimeout could be a good compromise for this
particular issue, but it is a "one size fits all" solution that some users
didn't like (providing a patch with the pollset solution).

If we remove the above use case (I fixed it in my Production environment
with a long Timeout value), would it be fine to rely on something like the
conn->aborted flag (afaics set by the output filter's chain while writing
to the client's conn)? It would simplify a lot the problem :)



View raw message