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 2009/07/17 15:34:55 UTC
Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> If you have time (fix in trunk, backport proposal) I will have a look
> at the proposal and vote on it to get it in.
+1. Segfault sounds serious enough to prioritise!
--
Nick Kew
RE: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eilebrecht
> Sent: Freitag, 17. Juli 2009 15:49
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
> > to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
>
> I just realized that I still have one patch for 2.2.12 which fixes an
> SSI-related bug causing a segfault when handling regex back-references
> (see attachment).
>
> I didn't propose it yet for inclusion in 2.2.12 as I didn't had the
> chance to fix this in trunk yet. The code/api in trunk changed
> and I don't know if this bug actually exists in trunk.
IMHO trunk should have the same problem as the code looks similar.
> I don't know if I will have the time to do this over the weekend.
If you have time (fix in trunk, backport proposal) I will have a look
at the proposal and vote on it to get it in.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
>> to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
>
> I just realized that I still have one patch for 2.2.12 which fixes an
> SSI-related bug causing a segfault when handling regex back-references
> (see attachment).
>
> I didn't propose it yet for inclusion in 2.2.12 as I didn't had the
> chance to fix this in trunk yet. The code/api in trunk changed
> and I don't know if this bug actually exists in trunk.
> I don't know if I will have the time to do this over the weekend.
>
> ciao...
> --
> Lars Eilebrecht
> lars@eilebrecht.net
>
> <mod_include_backref.patch>
I'll look and review... Most likely we'll have enough others to
see this thru :)
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Bob Ionescu <bo...@googlemail.com>.
2009/7/17 Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>:
> I've a faint recollection of someone raising this issue,
> but a quick google didn't find it. Do you have a test-case
> that provokes the bug you're fixing?
http://markmail.org/message/jlc7t5edsjujbe37 ;-)
Bob
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
>> to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
>
> I just realized that I still have one patch for 2.2.12 which fixes an
> SSI-related bug causing a segfault when handling regex back-references
> (see attachment).
Heh. Missed the attachment earlier.
I've a faint recollection of someone raising this issue,
but a quick google didn't find it. Do you have a test-case
that provokes the bug you're fixing?
--
Nick Kew
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>> would be really great if I could get some votes on the gen_test_char
>> change - it doesnt alter code for any other platform, but only
>> makes it
>> possible to decouple gen_test_char from APR with a define so I'm
>> able to
>> build a native version of it when cross-compiling:
>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/gen_test_char.c.diff
>
> I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems unrelated
> to
> the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
+1
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi,
> Graham Leggett schrieb:
>> I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems
>> unrelated to
>> the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
> probably the name was not good - I was also thinking of something like
> NEED_ENHANCED_ESCAPES or so ...; if someone has a better idea please
> tell me ...
>
> in the #else part of CROSS_COMPILE there I set WANT_WIN32_OS2:
> #if defined(WIN32) || defined(OS2)
> #define WANT_WIN32_OS2
> #endif
Looks safe to me...
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems unrelated to
> the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
probably the name was not good - I was also thinking of something like
NEED_ENHANCED_ESCAPES or so ...; if someone has a better idea please
tell me ...
in the #else part of CROSS_COMPILE there I set WANT_WIN32_OS2:
#if defined(WIN32) || defined(OS2)
#define WANT_WIN32_OS2
#endif
Günter.
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> Graham Leggett schrieb:
>> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>
>>> would be really great if I could get some votes on the gen_test_char
>>> change - it doesnt alter code for any other platform, but only
>>> makes it
>>> possible to decouple gen_test_char from APR with a define so I'm
>>> able to
>>> build a native version of it when cross-compiling:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/gen_test_char.c.diff
>>
>> I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems
>> unrelated to
>> the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
> yes, for two reasons:
> 1. I had problems with undefining WIN32 with the CodeWarrior Win32
> compiler, so the WIN32 (now WANT_WIN32_OS2) part snapped in unwanted.
> 2. I also thought of a Win32 cross compile where I want to have the
> WANT_WIN32_OS2 ifdef'd part in so that I can build the right
> gen_test_char for Win32 platform which runs native on Linux (of course
> in this case also a -DWIN32 would have done).
>
+1...
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi Graham,
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>
>> would be really great if I could get some votes on the gen_test_char
>> change - it doesnt alter code for any other platform, but only makes it
>> possible to decouple gen_test_char from APR with a define so I'm able to
>> build a native version of it when cross-compiling:
>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/gen_test_char.c.diff
>
> I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems unrelated to
> the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
yes, for two reasons:
1. I had problems with undefining WIN32 with the CodeWarrior Win32
compiler, so the WIN32 (now WANT_WIN32_OS2) part snapped in unwanted.
2. I also thought of a Win32 cross compile where I want to have the
WANT_WIN32_OS2 ifdef'd part in so that I can build the right
gen_test_char for Win32 platform which runs native on Linux (of course
in this case also a -DWIN32 would have done).
Günter.
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> would be really great if I could get some votes on the gen_test_char
> change - it doesnt alter code for any other platform, but only makes it
> possible to decouple gen_test_char from APR with a define so I'm able to
> build a native version of it when cross-compiling:
> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/gen_test_char.c.diff
I see there is a WANT_WIN32_OS2 symbol as well which seems unrelated to
the CROSS_COMPILE symbol, can you confirm whether you need both?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
all,
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
> HEAD on httpd-2.2 passes the perl framework tests and looks good.
> Planning on tagging/rolling later on today assuming nothing pops up,
> so please test beforehand :)
would be really great if I could get some votes on the gen_test_char
change - it doesnt alter code for any other platform, but only makes it
possible to decouple gen_test_char from APR with a define so I'm able to
build a native version of it when cross-compiling:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/gen_test_char.c.diff
if nobody objects I would like to start in around one hour, and prepare
our NetWare build system for this where I set it inactive by default
unless I get the votes for gen_test_char changes.
Günter.
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> However, instead of waiting for a full APR release, it would be
> nice to maybe tag an interim version of APR and bundle *that* with
> 2.2.12...
No, it would not, httpd will not become responsible for APR's releases
unless the APR project is folded and httpd project votes to accept the
responsibility for this code. So...
-1 on any APR fork in an httpd release (and my feelings are similar on
PCRE or expat forks, and for very similar reasons).
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> However, instead of waiting for a full APR release, it would be
> nice to maybe tag an interim version of APR and bundle *that* with
> 2.2.12...
No, it would not, httpd will not become responsible for APR's releases
unless the APR project is folded and httpd project votes to accept the
responsibility for this code. So...
-1 on any APR fork in an httpd release (and my feelings are similar on
PCRE or expat forks, and for very similar reasons).
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Jagielski
>> Sent: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 13:29
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
>>
>> HEAD on httpd-2.2 passes the perl framework tests and looks good.
>> Planning on tagging/rolling later on today assuming nothing pops up,
>> so please test beforehand :)
>>
>
> What about the dup3 / accept4 and so on detection issue in APR?
> Do we want to see a fixed APR release before or do we live with
> this issue in 2.2.12?
>
I get the impression that we won't be seeing a new APR release anytime
soon, due to the concern on whether this is an APR issue or an OS
"related" one.
However, instead of waiting for a full APR release, it would be
nice to maybe tag an interim version of APR and bundle *that* with
2.2.12...
CCing dev@apr
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 20, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Jagielski
>> Sent: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 13:29
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
>>
>> HEAD on httpd-2.2 passes the perl framework tests and looks good.
>> Planning on tagging/rolling later on today assuming nothing pops up,
>> so please test beforehand :)
>>
>
> What about the dup3 / accept4 and so on detection issue in APR?
> Do we want to see a fixed APR release before or do we live with
> this issue in 2.2.12?
>
I get the impression that we won't be seeing a new APR release anytime
soon, due to the concern on whether this is an APR issue or an OS
"related" one.
However, instead of waiting for a full APR release, it would be
nice to maybe tag an interim version of APR and bundle *that* with
2.2.12...
CCing dev@apr
RE: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski
> Sent: Montag, 20. Juli 2009 13:29
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
>
> HEAD on httpd-2.2 passes the perl framework tests and looks good.
> Planning on tagging/rolling later on today assuming nothing pops up,
> so please test beforehand :)
>
What about the dup3 / accept4 and so on detection issue in APR?
Do we want to see a fixed APR release before or do we live with
this issue in 2.2.12?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
HEAD on httpd-2.2 passes the perl framework tests and looks good.
Planning on tagging/rolling later on today assuming nothing pops up,
so please test beforehand :)
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@eilebrecht.net>.
Nick Kew wrote on 2009-07-19 00:04:59:
> Just been reviewing it with the testcase Bob found. I'm not able to
> reproduce the problem on this platform because Sun CC sets the
> non-matches to 0, so it all works. But the problem is clear.
>
> This throws up a non-serious problem with the patch: testing for <0.
> Wouldn't a better test be rm_eo == rm_so, meaning null match?
I think you are right. The tests for <0 are part of the original code
so I was just keeping them but testing for re->have_match first.
> Patching trunk based on the above. Will propose for backport
> if noone disputes my amendment to the patch.
I've seen you added both tests in your patch so we are good anyway.
+1 (and thanks for getting this fixed in trunk, I didn't had the time
to look at this over the weekend).
cheers...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
lars@eilebrecht.net
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> Patching trunk based on the above. Will propose for backport
> if noone disputes my amendment to the patch.
>
Done in r795445.
--
Nick Kew
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
>> to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
>
> I just realized that I still have one patch for 2.2.12 which fixes an
> SSI-related bug causing a segfault when handling regex back-references
> (see attachment).
Just been reviewing it with the testcase Bob found. I'm not able to
reproduce the problem on this platform because Sun CC sets the
non-matches to 0, so it all works. But the problem is clear.
This throws up a non-serious problem with the patch: testing for <0.
Wouldn't a better test be rm_eo == rm_so, meaning null match?
Patching trunk based on the above. Will propose for backport
if noone disputes my amendment to the patch.
--
Nick Kew
Re: Intent to T&R 2.2.12
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@eilebrecht.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Over the weekend I'll be doing some final things with the intent
> to tag and roll 2.2.12 on Monday...
I just realized that I still have one patch for 2.2.12 which fixes an
SSI-related bug causing a segfault when handling regex back-references
(see attachment).
I didn't propose it yet for inclusion in 2.2.12 as I didn't had the
chance to fix this in trunk yet. The code/api in trunk changed
and I don't know if this bug actually exists in trunk.
I don't know if I will have the time to do this over the weekend.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
lars@eilebrecht.net