On 06.01.2014 08:46, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 01/05/2014 11:10 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
I think I have no problem with changing the code to work as you
describe. I've only thought the way it works now is better, because
otherwise httpd could dump some files which it does not consider later.
On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for APR trunk, +0.9 for future APR 1.6.x, -0.9 for APR 1.5.x...
alternate opinions?
As far as I know, C guarantees that
if (a)
is the same as
if (a != 0)
So I'm unsure of the need for this patch.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 14:03
To: Jeff Trawick
Cc: Apache HTTP Server Development List; apr
Subject: Re: Event and atomics, round II
On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for APR trunk, +0.9 for
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for APR trunk, +0.9 for future APR 1.6.x, -0.9 for APR 1.5.x...
alternate opinions?
As far as I know, C guarantees that
if (a)
is
From: Yann Ylavic
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2014 16:57
To: httpd; apr
Subject: Re: Event and atomics, round II
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski
j...@jagunet.commailto:j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Trawick
traw...@gmail.commailto:traw...@gmail.com
If the unsigned quantity can be expressed as a signed
quantity, then all is well. The only undefined behavior
(implementation specific) is if it can't be. However,
the conversion from a non-0 quantity to a 0 would
be extremely unlikely. You'd get an unexpected signed
value, but I can't imagine any
So I've received at least two people asking me for more details about
CVE-2013-1896. I thinking it might be better to provide more than a couple
sentences on the issues. It can be hard to understand the impact of an issue
from what we're providing now.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:01:58 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Blaise Tarr blaise.t...@gmail.com wrote:
So mod_rewrite is not recognizing the unix: prefix as being
valid. I temporarily commented out the call of fully_qualify_uri(r)
at
