You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2007/09/26 19:30:33 UTC
[Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression:
two piped program started, one attached to tty]
In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error
logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger process
has kicked off. It seems someone's inherited that write end. I have
a two line patch attached that
Needs some review before we kick off 2.2.7 into the real world, since
we close that write end of the logger right after we've launched the
logger. Wondering if this might not be a prefork, worker or event mpm
specific failure case.
This patch wasn't for this bug, it was strictly for common sense, but
I'm wondering if it doesn't have a side effect of solving the bug;
Bill
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression: two piped program started, one attached to tty]
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 09/26/2007 07:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error
>> logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger
>> process
>> has kicked off. It seems someone's inherited that write end. I have
>> a two line patch attached that
>
> Funny. Two people getting to the same patch independently :-). So
> yes, I think your patch does the correct thing.
>
+1
>>
>> Needs some review before we kick off 2.2.7 into the real world, since
>> we close that write end of the logger right after we've launched the
>> logger. Wondering if this might not be a prefork, worker or event
>> mpm
>> specific failure case.
>
> I don't think so.
>
+1 as well...
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression:
two piped program started, one attached to tty]
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 09/27/2007 12:40 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> Still debugging, but go ahead and commit your patch; tag it up for backports.
> You already have my +1 that it's the right fix.
As the patch is part of your larger patch I wait to commit to make it easier
for others to apply the larger patch.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression:
two piped program started, one attached to tty]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2007 07:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error
>> logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger process
>> has kicked off. It seems someone's inherited that write end. I have
>> a two line patch attached that
>
> Funny. Two people getting to the same patch independently :-). So
> yes, I think your patch does the correct thing.
>
>> Needs some review before we kick off 2.2.7 into the real world, since
>> we close that write end of the logger right after we've launched the
>> logger. Wondering if this might not be a prefork, worker or event mpm
>> specific failure case.
>
> I don't think so.
I don't think so, either, this licks it.
I do believe we have one last bug in mpm_winnt to solve, because with the
state of my (heavily-patched) trunk, I'm arriving with stderr_file of NULL
in the ap_open_logs, and they should already have a static stderr_file.
This is in the win32 child, and not the parent.
Still debugging, but go ahead and commit your patch; tag it up for backports.
You already have my +1 that it's the right fix.
Bill
Re: [Fwd: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43491] New: - Piped ErrorLog regression:
two piped program started, one attached to tty]
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 09/26/2007 07:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> In the current log.c code, although the write-end of an initial error
> logger is still held by the parent --- until the second logger process
> has kicked off. It seems someone's inherited that write end. I have
> a two line patch attached that
Funny. Two people getting to the same patch independently :-). So
yes, I think your patch does the correct thing.
>
> Needs some review before we kick off 2.2.7 into the real world, since
> we close that write end of the logger right after we've launched the
> logger. Wondering if this might not be a prefork, worker or event mpm
> specific failure case.
I don't think so.
Regards
Rüdiger