You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2014/01/06 18:58:40 UTC
Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
nuff said :)
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
FYI, I also floated a few patches here that apply directly to 2.4.6
which includes the (many) proposed 2.4.7 patches.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 1/21/2014 8:27 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please have a look at
> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c19 where a
> patch is available against 2.4.7 (or 2.4.x).
>
> This is the same as the original
> http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch (proposed but not
> integrated into 2.4.7), but this one applies with no error against
> current 2.4.7 or 2.4.x sources.
>
> Regards,
> Yann.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
please have a look at
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c19 where a
patch is available against 2.4.7 (or 2.4.x).
This is the same as the original
http://people.apache.org/~jim/patches/uds-2.4.patch (proposed but not
integrated into 2.4.7), but this one applies with no error against
current 2.4.7 or 2.4.x sources.
Regards,
Yann.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Yonah Russ <yo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're really interested in getting the UDS support in 2.4.8.
> If someone could put together a tarball for us to test, we would be happy to
> do so.
>
> Thanks,
> Yonah
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> > nuff said :)
>>
>> One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could
>> spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW.
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Yonah Russ <yo...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
We're really interested in getting the UDS support in 2.4.8.
If someone could put together a tarball for us to test, we would be happy
to do so.
Thanks,
Yonah
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
> On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > nuff said :)
>
> One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could
> spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 14:15 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I can certainly apply and propose for back port the defect fixes, this
> week.
>
> Those which change the configured behavior in an unexpected way are no
> longer easy fits on 2.2 or 2.4, and need further discussion about
> their
Anything that changes a currently configured and expected behaviour, IMO
should not even be contemplated for a stable release - until 2.6.x
series.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wm...@gmail.com>.
I can certainly apply and propose for back port the defect fixes, this week.
Those which change the configured behavior in an unexpected way are no
longer easy fits on 2.2 or 2.4, and need further discussion about their
urgency here on list. It would also be good to leave enhancements on
trunk/ for the time being to allow for additional review.
Give me into the weekend to get these all sorted and a subset of them
closed, unless someone is eager to beat me to them.
On Jan 9, 2014 10:06 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :)
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph <mi...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jim,
> >
> > I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple
> of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8.
> >
> > If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache
> httpd 2.4.8,
> > then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering:
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651
> > - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first
> presented over a year ago.
> > - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process
> RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
> > - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while
> studying mod_remoteip.c.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962
> > - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe
> Jr.
> > - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some
> unlikely use cases.
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886
> > - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the
> client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic.
> >
> > I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike Rumph
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> "defect"?
> >>
> >> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
> >> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
> >>
> >> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
> >> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
> >> reason to not include it where we say it is, and
> >> where we see it works.
> >>
> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
> >>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
> >>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
> >>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
> >>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
> >>>> currently isn't supported.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
> >>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
> >>> a release branch.
> >>>
> >>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag?
> >>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Thx! I'd like to have Bill look over these. :)
On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Mike Rumph <mi...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8.
>
> If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache httpd 2.4.8,
> then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering:
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651
> - This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first presented over a year ago.
> - This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses.
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
> - This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered while studying mod_remoteip.c.
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962
> - This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr.
> - This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some unlikely use cases.
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886
> - This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic.
>
> I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Rumph
>
>
>
> On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> "defect"?
>>
>> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
>> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
>>
>> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
>> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
>> reason to not include it where we say it is, and
>> where we see it works.
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
>>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
>>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
>>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
>>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
>>>> currently isn't supported.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
>>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
>>> a release branch.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag?
>>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
>>>
>>
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Mike Rumph <mi...@oracle.com>.
Hello Jim,
I would like to make a suggestion that is off topic from the last couple
of replies but pertinent to a T&R of 2.4.8.
If anyone is interested in having mod_remoteip work correctly in Apache
httpd 2.4.8,
then the following bug reports and patches might be worth considering:
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54651
- This is my reworking to an attachment of a patch that was first
presented over a year ago.
- This is an essential patch for mod_remoteip to correctly process
RemoteIPHeader headers that contain a list of IP addresses.
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55972
- This is a fix to an obvious error that I recently discovered
while studying mod_remoteip.c.
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55962
- This is my implementation of an idea suggested by William A. Rowe Jr.
- This one could bring a slight improvement in behavior to some
unlikely use cases.
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55886
- This one is analysis on the question of what should appear in the
client field on the server-status page after mod_remoteip works its magic.
I am available to help with any further work that might be needed here.
Thanks,
Mike Rumph
On 1/9/2014 5:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> "defect"?
>
> We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
> Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
>
> If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
> then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
> reason to not include it where we say it is, and
> where we see it works.
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
>>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
>>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
>>>>
>>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
>>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
>>> currently isn't supported.
>>>
>>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
>> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
>> a release branch.
>>
>> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag?
>> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
>>
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
"defect"?
We support UDS in ProxyPass. We don't in mod_rewrite.
Nor do we claim to. I don't think that's a "defect".
If later on UDS support is *also* added to mod_rewrite,
then good. But not having it there isn't, IMO, any
reason to not include it where we say it is, and
where we see it works.
On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
>>> valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
>>> at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
>>>
>>
>> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
>> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
>> currently isn't supported.
>>
>> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
>
> No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
> a release branch.
>
> Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag?
> Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
>
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being
> > valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
> > at mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
> >
>
> Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
> and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
> currently isn't supported.
>
> I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
No, it's currently not an issue, we haven't introduced that defect into
a release branch.
Are you suggesting we hold off on the UDS support? Or the 2.4.8 tag?
Or that new defects are interesting challenges for users?
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being valid. I
> temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) at
> mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
>
Yes, right now the UDS support is only valid directly via mod_proxy,
and the required hooks in mod_rewrite need to be done and
currently isn't supported.
I don't see that as a big issue, currently. ;)
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Blaise Tarr <bl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could
> spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW.
I tried the UDS patch in httpd trunk with mod_proxy_fcgi and PHP-FPM,
and ProxyPass is working nicely now. I used the following config:
<LocationMatch ^(.*\.php)$>
ProxyPass unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://PHP1${DOCROOT}
</LocationMatch>
One thing worth pointing out is that some unique dummy hostname, such
as that "PHP1" in the above example, is required after the real
scheme. It might be tempting to pick "localhost", but that would
result in problems when using multiple sockets.
Next I tried using UDS with mod_rewrite, but I couldn't get that to
work. Using this config:
RewriteRule /php-info
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://${DOCROOT}/ppp/info.php [P,L]
with this URL:
http://localhost:8000/php-info
I got a 404. Turning on tracing for mod_rewrite:
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653655 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] rewrite '/php-info'
-> 'unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php'
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653672 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] forcing
proxy-throughput with
http://localhost:8000/unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 13:56:25.653702 2014] [rewrite:trace1] [pid 15211:tid
140236536502016] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:49459] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#21a5a58][rid#7f8b44002970/initial] go-ahead with proxy
request proxy:http://localhost:8000/unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[OK]
So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the "unix:" prefix as being valid. I
temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r) at
mod_rewrite.c:4130, and now r->filename is set correctly:
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758212 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] rewrite '/php-info'
-> 'unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php'
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758226 2014] [rewrite:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] forcing
proxy-throughput with
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758253 2014] [rewrite:trace1] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_rewrite.c(472): [client ::1:50308] ::1 - -
[localhost/sid#2535a58][rid#7f5d14002970/initial] go-ahead with proxy
request proxy:unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[OK]
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758379 2014] [proxy:trace2] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] proxy_util.c(1932): [client ::1:50308] *: found
reverse proxy worker for
unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758392 2014] [proxy:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy.c(1138): [client ::1:50308] AH01143:
Running scheme unix handler (attempt 0)
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758403 2014] [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(770): [client ::1:50308] AH01076:
url: unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
proxyname: (null) proxyport: 0
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758411 2014] [proxy_fcgi:debug] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] mod_proxy_fcgi.c(773): [client ::1:50308] AH01077:
declining URL unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi:///data/local/build/apache/inst/htdocs/ppp/info.php
[Mon Jan 06 14:30:47.758418 2014] [proxy:warn] [pid 20870:tid
140038133200640] [client ::1:50308] AH01144: No protocol handler was
valid for the URL /php-info. If you are using a DSO version of
mod_proxy, make sure the proxy submodules are included in the
configuration using LoadModule.
but this results in a 500. It looks like mod_proxy is not ready for a
UDS URI in r->filename when it was set by some other module earlier in
the request.
--
Blaise
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 1/6/2014 11:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> nuff said :)
One more vote for the UDS patch would be appreciated if anyone could
spare a moment to have a look. Happy New Year all, BTW.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
Helo,
could http://svn.apache.org/r1538776 be considered for backport too (PR 55475)?
It's about mod_proxy to detect/handle incomplete (interrupted) backend
responses.
Regards,
Yann.
Re: Looking to T&R 2.4.8 in Feb...
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
Also PR 55666, patches starting with
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55666#c12 have not
been reviewed/commited yet.
It's about mod_deflate input/output filters to be reentrant when
parsing zlib header, so to avoid "Zlib: Invalid header" or
"Insufficient data for inflate".
Regards.