It is been a while since I last worked on FreeBSD but if I recall correctly:
'lockf' - sleeping on a flock() or fcntl() equivalent on some file fd somewhere.
'sbwait' - socket buffer wait - a wait due to recv or send buf size
for socket fds'.
Attaching a gdb on such child pids and g
Hi,
We have CGI apps that send back a 302 response in several places.
In order not to change these apps. (yet), is it possible via some
directives (akin to mod_rewrite but on the response side.) to
change 302 to 301 ?? Currently we are using httpd 1.3.x series.
If such response manipulation mo
Actually it is more subtle. Even during execution, apache starts the timer
during start of header, and start of body. So a malicious script could
potentially
give data in trickles to restart these timers, but my point was that apache
definetly takes care of runaway cgi scripts even in execution (a
t
to 300.
I never saw looping CGI's terminated under version 1 either.
With four processors in our system we sometimes don't notice looping CGI
scripts for a few days!
On 13/10/06, Ravi Menon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the apache 1.3.x on Linux that I am using, apache does sen
In the apache 1.3.x on Linux that I am using, apache does send a SIGTERM
when the Timeout value has reached. The code is here:
apache_1.3.33/src/main/alloc.c:free_proc_chain()
This is called from ap_clear_pool() which is done at the end of
request cycle, or
during hard timeouts.
The logic here
Hi,
I didn't follow the full email thread so I apologise if this is off-topic.
Apache 1.3.x definetly has support for looping CGI apps - see
src/main/alloc.c:alloc.c:free_proc_chain().
When a new CGI app is spawned, it is registered in this 'proc chain'
list and when timeout occurs at cgi handl
Hi,
I built an apache DSO using apxs with the apache version:
Server version: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix)
However I plan to install this DSO on a box running a older 1.3 release:
Server version: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix)
Is this safe to do so?
Assuming the versioning scheme is 'major.minor.revision' and
