Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <3CFA2C27.8000006@slive.ca>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 10:31:03 -0400
From: Joshua Slive <joshua@slive.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.0rc3) Gecko/20020523
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: PerChild clarification
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206020723400.2942-100000@rhiannon.rcbowen.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rich Bowen wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I understand that part, but why would you want to tie this
> user/group ID to a particular child process, rather than to a virtual
> host?

It is a two step process: tie a child process to a user and the child 
process to the virtual host.  You need both directives.

Why is this necessary?  Because there is no safe way for child processes 
to change userids between requests.  Therefore you need to have a 
long-lived process under each id.

The trick of perchild is just being able to pass requests between 
processes in order to serve the requests under the correct priveleges. 
The same thing can be done manually simply by running multiple copies of 
apache on different ports, and having one apache listen on port 80 and 
proxypass the requests to the correct ports.

If I was going to make any change to the perchild docs right now, it 
would be to wipe out the whole summary section and replace it with a 
huge "this module doesn't work, so don't even bother".

Joshua.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org