Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT) From: <unknown@riverstyx.net> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> Cc: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG, paul@originative.co.uk Subject: Re: [Re: Request For Better Communications] Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905111232430.25966-100000@hades.riverstyx.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpiu9zh314.fsf@localhost.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pardon my ignorance -- Sioux DoS? Never heard of that one. I'm surprised that they'd actually ignore patches for something that important... --- tani hosokawa river styx internet On 11 May 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > <unknown@riverstyx.net> writes: > > Apache's pool memory seems like a good example, in case anyone cares :) > > It's a good concept, but Apache's implementation of it is very poor - > it leaks like a sieve, and is responsible for making the Sioux DoS > possible. (I offered them patches, which they ignored.) And it's not > real GC - you have to explicitly release a pool to discard the objects > within it, and when you do, *all* objects are discarded, even if > they're still referenced. It works for Apache because they have a lot > of stuff which is transaction-bound - i.e. buffers for reading request > headers, file descriptors to the document or CGI requested, etc., > which can be discarded all in one go. Also, it does more than just GC > since it closes files and sockets does some other cleanup stuff. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9905111232430.25966-100000>