Passes the document-root to the Lua handler by placing it in uhttpd.docroot.
It could alternatively be placed in env.DOCUMENT_ROOT which would more closely
resemble the CGI protocol; but would mean that it is not available at the time
when the handler-chunk is loaded but rather not until the handler is called,
without any code savings.
Signed-off-by: David Favro <openwrt@meta-dynamic.com>
SVN-Revision: 31571
My apologies, the 2nd of those patches had a syntax error -- that's what
I get for making a last-minute edit, even to the comments, without
testing! :-p
Here is the corrected patch.
-- David
From d259cff104d2084455476b82e92a3a27524f4263 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Favro <openwrt@meta-dynamic.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:17:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] uhttpd URL-codec enhancements.
* uh_urlencode() and uh_urldecode() now return an error condition for
buffer-overflow and malformed-encoding rather than normal return with corrupt
or truncated data. As HTTP request processing is currently implemented, this
causes a 404 HTTP status returned to the client, while 400 is more
appropriate.
* Exposed urlencode() to Lua.
* Lua's uhttpd.urlencode() and .urldecode() now raise an error condition for
buffer-overflow and malformed-encoding rather than normal return with
incorrect data.
SVN-Revision: 31570
* Fixed output-buffer-overflow bug in uh_urlencode() and uh_urldecode() [tested
input-buffer index against output-buffer length]. In reality, this would not
typically cause an overflow on decode, where the output string would be
expected to be shorter than the input string; and uh_urlencode() seems to have
been unreferenced in the source.
* Fixed bug: uh_urlencode() and uh_urldecode() both read one extra byte from the
input-string. While this could manifest in C code, the result was most
egregious when called from Lua, where it caused an extra null byte to be
embedded at the end of the output string.
* uh_urlencode() cleanup: removed redundant bitwise-and.
Signed-off-by: David Favro <openwrt@meta-dynamic.com>
SVN-Revision: 31569
The existing code is fairly broken. It assumes you're using Legacy IP, and
it assumes that the server is reachable via your default route. Via the
first default route in the 'route -n' output, in fact, regardless of metric.
Fix all those problems by using 'ip route get' to really find the *current*
route to the server, and install a host-specific route to match.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
SVN-Revision: 31565
This patch makes several changes to the util-linux(-ng) package:
* rename to util-linux (official name now, util-linux-ng got merged)
* bump to last stable version 2.21.1 (was 2.13.0.1 before)
* add several new packages
* sort packages within Makefile
* remove patches which got merged upstream
This patch makes some changes to the e2fsprogs package:
* bump to last stable version 1.42.2
* libraries moved from e2fsprogs to util-linux - take care of that
Signed-off-by: Luka Perkov <openwrt@lukaperkov.net>
SVN-Revision: 31499
Any modifications in target/linux/*/modules.mk would not come into effect for
subsequent "make menuconfig" unless we delete ./tmp.
Signed-off-by: kalyan <kalyanatejaswi@gmail.com>
SVN-Revision: 31442
hi
Another version, in this one the enable_server option is in the timeserver ntp part of the "system" config file
You can patch trunk and bacfire (tested both)
You can put busybox ntpd in client mode (if you put server), in client & server (by putting enable_server to 1, ntpd listen to udp 123), and also in server mode only (if you didn't put any servers in the config and still put enable_server 1, ntpd will answer with the time of the router)
I've replaced "config_foreach getpeers timeserver" with "config_get peers ntp server" because we want ntp timeserver, not random ones (to pre-answer if someone want to say that it's intrusive ...)
Signed-off-by: Etienne CHAMPETIER <etienne.champetier@free.fr>
Le 27/03/2012 20:41, Etienne Champetier a écrit :
> I've now tested my trunk patch and it works fine
> But I still can't find were $PROG is defined (is this a mistake, or some sort of built in variable???)
> (I've made some grep and nothing)
>
> Le 23/03/2012 02:19, Philip Prindeville a écrit :
>> Maybe:
>>
>> [ -n "$PROG" -a -x "$PROG" ] || return 1
>>
>> instead?
>>
>>
>> On 3/22/12 4:34 PM, Etienne Champetier wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> The 2 attached patchs (trunk & bacfire) add busybox ntpd enable_server option, as busybox ntpd server is compiled by default.
>>> We only need 1 client/server daemon (olipro patch was launching 2 daemons)
>>> I've fully tested the bacfire patch, and as i don't have a running openwrt trunk i'm not sure for the trunk patch (i'm sure about my modifications, but i'm not sure about "[ -x $PROG ] || return 1", as "$PROG" isn't defined ?!)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Etienne CHAMPETIER <etienne.champetier@free.fr>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 16/01/2012 01:57, Philip Prindeville a écrit :
>>>> On 1/14/12 11:37 AM, Olipro wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday 14 Jan 2012 02:45:59 Philip Prindeville wrote:
>>>>>> Don't we already have a 'disabled' option? Now we're adding an
>>>>>> 'enable_server' option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems confusing for no useful reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>> have you bothered to read what I originally wrote? your response would make
>>>>> me inclined to believe that you didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> currently the ntpd initscript only runs it as a CLIENT - this patch enables
>>>>> you to have one instance running as a client and another as a SERVER that
>>>>> other hosts can synchronise with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding, what would you propose for allowing the
>>>>> built-in busybox ntpd to be utilised as a server? a separate init script
>>>>> entirely perhaps?
>>>> Or separate config sections... instead of 'config ntp' have 'config ntp-server' and 'config ntp-client'.
>>>>
>>>> -Philip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openwrt-devel mailing list
>>>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
>>>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> openwrt-devel mailing list
>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
SVN-Revision: 31374
