Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79116 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2003 03:26:40 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2003 03:26:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 75042 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2003 03:26:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75031 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2003 03:26:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75017 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2003 03:26:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO beauty.rexursive.com) (202.59.98.58) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2003 03:26:20 -0000 Received: by beauty.rexursive.com (Postfix, from userid 52) id 4D7611E8D7; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:22:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 203.53.38.230 ([203.53.38.230]) by imp.rexursive.com (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:22:58 +1000 Message-ID: <1063855378.3f6925120416d@imp.rexursive.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:22:58 +1000 From: Bojan Smojver To: apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Bug in apreq_attr_to_type macro References: <1063847114.3f6904ca68303@imp.rexursive.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Quoting Joe Schaefer : > Thanks! I have a different take on the situation, though. > IMO this represents a bug in apreq_cookie()- we *really should* > check the return value of apr_table_get before feeding it to the > macro. I'm cool with whatever fixes the problem. Some other functions might be suspect as well in this scenario. Basically, we'd need to make sure NULL is never passed to this macro... -- Bojan