graham.dumpleton at gmail
Nov 23, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #5 of 7
(807 views)
Permalink
|
2009/11/23 Jeff Trawick <trawick [at] gmail>:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:40 AM,
> <christian4apache [at] lists> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We have an internal project where we need the MPM module perchild. The
>> Apache 2.0 documentation says that the development is not completed. I
>> talked to my boss and he says I could take maybe any necessary residual
>> activities, (depending on the size). Therefore, the following questions:
>>
>> * What is currently state of this module?
>> * What would a collaboration?
>> * How is the planning of this module in Apache 2.2. The link of 'user'
>> (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#user) and 'group'
>> (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#group) only brings
>> a 404 (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/perchild.html).
>
> perchild is no longer maintained here.
>
> See
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/mod/mod_privileges.html (in future httpd 2.4)
FWIW, contrary to what is suggested by documentation for
mod_privileges, I would anticipate that modules which embed a Python
interpreter such as mod_python and mod_wsgi are not going to be
compatible with at least SECURE mode of mod_privileges. This is
because after a fork of a Python process special Python interpreter
core function has to be called to do some fixups. This is fine if fork
done from Python code as it will be done automatically, but not if
done from external C code in same process. Not sure how well things
will work if that fixup function isn't called.
So, in order for it to work, there would need to be optional hook
functions exposed by mod_privileges which would allow other modules to
run special actions after the fork. This though means that the
distinct modules would need to be customised to know about
mod_privileges.
BTW, what operating system feature does this use that means it is only
usable on Solaris?
Graham
|
