Re: Load extensions for .user.ini files
| From: | Edward Z. Yang | Date: | Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:42:11 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Load extensions for .user.ini files | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-56287@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
http://svn.php.net/repository/php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3
r318957
We also applied it to 5.3.8 release, although we had to fix up the patch
for that. I can port it to 5.4.
Edward
Excerpts from Rasmus Lerdorf's message of Fri Nov 11 14:38:13 -0500 2011:
> Which branch in this patch against? It doesn't apply to 5_3/5_4/trunk
>
> It is short and simple so I could do it manually, of course, but I'd
> like to know what you have been testing it against.
>
> On 11/10/2011 07:14 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> > Here is the proposed patch (sans tests; we did our own manual testing
> > on 32-bit and 64-bit, and had to fix an unrelated bug; will provide
> > tests when you say so):
> >
> >
> > http://web.mit.edu/~ezyang/Public/php-user-ini-extension.patch
> >
> > The change to zlist_clean is necessary because otherwise extension_lists can't
> > be reused for the second round of extension appliations (since the head and
> > tail pointers have garbage in them). You should probably take that fix regardless
> > of what you think of the feature change.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > Excerpts from Rasmus Lerdorf's message of Tue Nov 08 03:40:17 -0500 2011:
> >> On 11/08/2011 12:23 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>> My team is interested in permitting .user.ini files to load
> >>> extensions. We believe this to be a simple fix: add
> >>> an invocation of php_ini_register_extensions to the end
> >>> of sapi/cgi/cgi-main.c.
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe this steps on any invariants, since extensions
> >>> can usually be loaded arbitrarily late.
> >>>
> >>> Let me know what the list thinks. I can submit a patch and tests
> >>> if y'all decide it's a good idea.
> >>
> >> You are aware that these extensions can't be unloaded, right? So one
> >> user loading an extension will potentially be stepping on another user
> >> and breaking their code.
> >>
> >> -Rasmus