You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by rj...@apache.org on 2014/09/04 11:21:16 UTC
svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Author: rjung
Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
New Revision: 1622429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
Log:
Propose.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1622429&r1=1622428&r2=1622429&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
@@ -242,6 +242,20 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
2.4.x patch: trunk works (except for mod_journald which is not part of 2.4.x)
+1: jailletc36
+ * mod_proxy: Increase limits for worker names, routes and
+ worker host names. Make worker name truncation a non-fatal
+ error.
+ mod_slotmem: Increase log level for some originally
+ debug messages.
+ trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1540318
+ http://svn.apache.org/r1621367
+ http://svn.apache.org/r1621372
+ http://svn.apache.org/r1621373
+ http://svn.apache.org/r1621382
+ 2.4.x patch: trunk works (adjust CHANGES) for convenience:
+ http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/proxy-worker-max-name-2_4.patch
+ +1: rjung
+
OTHER PROPOSALS
* A list of further possible backports can be found at:
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
As long as we bump mmn, we should be OK.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
> rjung@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: rjung
>> Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
>> New Revision: 1622429
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
>> Log:
>> Propose.
>>
>> Modified:
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>>
>> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1622429&r1=1622428&r2=1622429&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
>> @@ -242,6 +242,20 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>> 2.4.x patch: trunk works (except for mod_journald which is not part of 2.4.x)
>> +1: jailletc36
>>
>> + * mod_proxy: Increase limits for worker names, routes and
>> + worker host names. Make worker name truncation a non-fatal
>> + error.
>> + mod_slotmem: Increase log level for some originally
>> + debug messages.
>> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1540318
>> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621367
>> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621372
>> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621373
>> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621382
>> + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (adjust CHANGES) for convenience:
>> + http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/proxy-worker-max-name-2_4.patch
>> + +1: rjung
>> +
>> OTHER PROPOSALS
>>
>> * A list of further possible backports can be found at:
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I think, in this case, a minor could be justified.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com> wrote:
> But IMHO that would be a major bump and not a minor one. And we cannot do major ones in stable branches.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>>
>> I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
>>>> Can we really backport this?
>>>>
>>>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing
>> offsets inside the struct.
>>>
>>> Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
>> public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the proposal.
>>>
>>> We could think about adding new larger name fields to the end of the
>> struct and keep a truncated copy in the original struct mebers. But that
>> means 3rd-party modules using the old original fields would only see
>> part of the names.
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>>
>
AW: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Plüm,
Rüdiger,
Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>.
But IMHO that would be a major bump and not a minor one. And we cannot do major ones in stable branches.
Regards
Rüdiger
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
> >> Can we really backport this?
> >>
> >> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing
> offsets inside the struct.
> >
> > Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
> public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the proposal.
> >
> > We could think about adding new larger name fields to the end of the
> struct and keep a truncated copy in the original struct mebers. But that
> means 3rd-party modules using the old original fields would only see
> part of the names.
> >
> > Rainer
> >
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
> Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
>> Can we really backport this?
>>
>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
>
> Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the proposal.
>
> We could think about adding new larger name fields to the end of the struct and keep a truncated copy in the original struct mebers. But that means 3rd-party modules using the old original fields would only see part of the names.
>
> Rainer
>
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the proposal.
We could think about adding new larger name fields to the end of the
struct and keep a truncated copy in the original struct mebers. But that
means 3rd-party modules using the old original fields would only see
part of the names.
Rainer
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Agreed all the way around...
PS: I *think* we also did this before, when we needed
to bump up some *scoreboard* field sizes (to support
IPv6) and we still did it w/ a minor bump, iirc.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we really backport this?
>>>
>>> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets
>> inside the struct.
>>>
>>
>> True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
>>
>> I know of no-one other than httpd that uses that struct anyway
>> and even though it's "public", no one else messes with
>> it.
>
> Then it shouldn't be in a public header, but in a private one.
> Not sure how we can fix this now.
>
>>
>> I am a BIG +1 for fixing this. At the very least, we
>
> I agree that it would be a good fix. I am only worried about breaking our API promises.
>
>> should add the backport which makes truncation of
>> the name field a non-fatal error.
>
> +1 to making it a non-fatal error.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
AW: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Plüm,
Rüdiger,
Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Can we really backport this?
> >
> > We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets
> inside the struct.
> >
>
> True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
>
> I know of no-one other than httpd that uses that struct anyway
> and even though it's "public", no one else messes with
> it.
Then it shouldn't be in a public header, but in a private one.
Not sure how we can fix this now.
>
> I am a BIG +1 for fixing this. At the very least, we
I agree that it would be a good fix. I am only worried about breaking our API promises.
> should add the backport which makes truncation of
> the name field a non-fatal error.
+1 to making it a non-fatal error.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
>
True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
I know of no-one other than httpd that uses that struct anyway
and even though it's "public", no one else messes with
it.
I am a BIG +1 for fixing this. At the very least, we
should add the backport which makes truncation of
the name field a non-fatal error.
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
> Can we really backport this?
>
> We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
I documented a woraround for the problem of short proxy URLs in BZ53218.
It should be applicable in many cases.
It is based on mixing ProxyPass with a (could be dummy) short URI to
configura a connection pool to the origin server and RewriteRule with
[P] flag to actually forward requests to long target URLs on that server.
See the BZ for some details.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rjung@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
> New Revision: 1622429
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
> Log:
> Propose.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1622429&r1=1622428&r2=1622429&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
> @@ -242,6 +242,20 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
> 2.4.x patch: trunk works (except for mod_journald which is not part of 2.4.x)
> +1: jailletc36
>
> + * mod_proxy: Increase limits for worker names, routes and
> + worker host names. Make worker name truncation a non-fatal
> + error.
> + mod_slotmem: Increase log level for some originally
> + debug messages.
> + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1540318
> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621367
> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621372
> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621373
> + http://svn.apache.org/r1621382
> + 2.4.x patch: trunk works (adjust CHANGES) for convenience:
> + http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/proxy-worker-max-name-2_4.patch
> + +1: rjung
> +
> OTHER PROPOSALS
>
> * A list of further possible backports can be found at:
>
>
>