[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: WebDAV proxy feature "negotiation" -- there's *got* to be a better way.

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:43:48 +0200

Mark Phippard wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:24:03 -0500:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
> > Reviving an old thread: has anyone evaluated the possibility of having the
> > slave ask the master for its version at runtime?
>
> I have considered asking for that before, but I held off because if
> this were possible wouldn't that be considered a security violation?
> Isn't that why httpd has directives like ServerSignature and
> ServerTokens so that the server will not reveal its version
> information easily?
>

It's not a major problem, and if it is we can just disable it and
require the directive to be specified on the slave when the master has
ServerSignature disabled.

> We needed this information in Subversion Edge so that we could
> configure a slave correctly. In our case, we only knew the master was
> either running 1.6 or 1.7 so we just send the master an HTTP request
> to figure out if it supports HTTPv2. If it does, then we know it is
> running 1.7. We will obviously needed to adjust this for 1.8 and also
> look for some of the new capabilities.
>

Therefore, disclosing "%d.%d" % (SVN_VER_MAJOR, SVN_VER_MINOR)
might not be a problem?

> I guess it would be nice if mod_dav_svn could do this probing itself
> upon startup or something and then cache it. Obviously it cannot do
> it as part of the actual proxying as that would be too late.
>

Sure, caching would be useful. This information very rarely changes.

>
> > The actual use-case driving this is Philip's workflow. He commits to
> > svn.apache.org via a DAV proxy on his workstation; but when his proxy runs 1.8,
> > he needs to set "SVMasterVersion 1.7" in his config --- which would get out of date as soon as svn.apache.org is
> > upgraded.
>
> Is this really a problem? It is not like the configuration cannot be
> updated when this happens. If we can make it better great, but I
> would think he would still have to restart his server to even trigger
> whatever code would do this sort of checking. I cannot envision any

Whether he'll have to restart depends on how we do caching.

> usable proxy scenario that can be totally dynamic.
>
> --
> Thanks
>
> Mark Phippard
> http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2013-02-19 16:44:25 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.