Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53868 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2004 10:52:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 10:52:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 15507 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2004 10:52:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 15430 invoked by uid 500); 18 Sep 2004 10:52:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 15416 invoked by uid 99); 18 Sep 2004 10:52:48 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates 64.233.170.205 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.170.205] (HELO mproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.170.205) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:52:47 -0700 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 80so561672rnk for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.8.29 with SMTP id 29mr270747rnh; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.206.20 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 06:52:41 -0400 From: Jeff Trawick Reply-To: Jeff Trawick To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't crash with per-dir (location) rewrite config and NULL r->filename In-Reply-To: <4141B26F.9010209@modperlcookbook.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <41419BBE.10600@modperlcookbook.org> <41419DCD.7050209@modperlcookbook.org> <4141B26F.9010209@modperlcookbook.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:55:59 -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > > I'm afraid I don't understand. > > yeah, I'm sorry, that's my fault :) I should have taken the time to analyze > the code in context and follow it all through. > > having done that, the only thing that comes to mind is I wonder how much > logic can be skipped if r->filename is NULL and you assign it r->uri. for > instance, > > if (l > 6 && strncmp(r->filename, "proxy:", 6) == 0) { > /* it should go on as an internal proxy request */ the reason to fill in r->filename when I did was so that apply_rewrite_list() has that info; otherwise, it will segfault (on machines that don't like strlen(NULL)) or simply not match