Loading STATUS +9 −0 Changes for STATUS: 9 added lines, 0 removed lines. Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -230,6 +230,15 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: the backend is available to rec' it. I understand the error described, but is the fix actually worth it (plus it seems to allow for a DDoS vector). ylavic: It seems to me that the problem is real since we reuse the connection before prefetching 16K (either controlled by the client, or by an input filter), we currently always prefetch these bytes already. Regarding performance I don't see any difference (more cycles) compared with the current code. However I think I failed to rebuild the header_brigade when the proxy loop is retried (ping), so I need to rework this. Do you think we'd better remove the prefetch, or maybe just make it nonblocking (by default)? *) http: Make ap_die() robust against any HTTP error code and not modify response status (finally logged) when nothing is to be done. PR 56035. Loading Loading
STATUS +9 −0 Changes for STATUS: 9 added lines, 0 removed lines. Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -230,6 +230,15 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: the backend is available to rec' it. I understand the error described, but is the fix actually worth it (plus it seems to allow for a DDoS vector). ylavic: It seems to me that the problem is real since we reuse the connection before prefetching 16K (either controlled by the client, or by an input filter), we currently always prefetch these bytes already. Regarding performance I don't see any difference (more cycles) compared with the current code. However I think I failed to rebuild the header_brigade when the proxy loop is retried (ping), so I need to rework this. Do you think we'd better remove the prefetch, or maybe just make it nonblocking (by default)? *) http: Make ap_die() robust against any HTTP error code and not modify response status (finally logged) when nothing is to be done. PR 56035. Loading