httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel <>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] ProxyPass with Location in 2.4.25
Date Wed, 10 May 2017 16:45:00 GMT
Most specific proxypass directives take precedence over the most "global"
ones, while with Location is the opposite, you must define the most global
paths first and then the most specific.

So with ProxyPass the correct order or definition would be (if you define
/something later it will be ignored):
ProxyPass /something ...
ProxyPass /

While with Location the order of definition should be (If you define
/something first it "overriden" with "/" settings):
<Location />
<Location /something>

So whatever happened earlier (but I too found weird that this has changed),
mixing ProxyPass in virtualhost with ProxyPass in Location is a recipe for
confusion and problems, and I have to read what you did, I could also find
logical your Location is ignored, because Location works differently than

My suggestion is just define ProxyPass and similar directives directly in
virtualhost and use Location for something that can't be avoidable in
certain cases, like authz related directives, etc. And remember the
desirable order of preference to not get directives ignored.

If there is a bug or a real change between versions, I leave that to Nick
and the other devs :)

2017-05-09 12:31 GMT+02:00 Michael Haas <>:

> i only updated apache + openssl from source.
> The only thing i found what changed in 2.4.25 with proxypass and location
> is this
> And i think this is the same problem which i have
> configuration-virtualserver-reverseproxy-location-directive-broke-a
> 2017-05-09 11:17 GMT+02:00 Nick Kew <>:
>> On Tue, 9 May 2017 10:08:36 +0200
>> Michael Haas <> wrote:
>> > With 2.4.25 all requests are routet through the last ProxyPass, the
>> > Location directive is ignored so the rewrite from the context is not
>> > happening.
>> > If i put the last ProxyPass in a Location directive like <Location ~
>> > "^/(?!service)"> it's again working.
>> >
>> > Is this a intended change?
>> Interesting.  No, an upgrade between different 2.4.x versions
>> shouldn't have broken your configuration, unless a security fix
>> had made it unavoidable (which isn't the case here).  And that
>> should've been clearly documented as an upgrade note!
>> Are you sure nothing else changed at the same time as your upgrade?
>> Did you build from source or install a packaged or third-party version?
>> --
>> Nick Kew
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

*Daniel Ferradal*
IT Specialist

email         dferradal at

View raw message