On 6/23/22 8:49 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/22 5:12 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: ylavic
>> Date: Thu Jun 23 15:12:47 2022
>> New Revision: 1902206
>
>
>> @@ -275,16 +284,17 @@ APR_DECLARE(int) apr_base64_encode_binar
>> }
>>
>> *p++ = '\0';
>> - return (int)(p - encoded);
>> + return (unsigned int)(p - encoded);
>> }
>>
>> APR_DECLARE(char *) apr_pbase64_encode(apr_pool_t *p, const char *string)
>> {
>> char *encoded;
>> - int l = strlen(string);
>> + apr_size_t len = strlen(string);
>>
>> - encoded = (char *) apr_palloc(p, apr_base64_encode_len(l));
>> - apr_base64_encode(encoded, string, l);
>> + assert(len <= (apr_size_t)APR_INT32_MAX);
>
> Shouldn't this be INT_MAX or APR_BASE64_ENCODE_MAX?
Any update on this comment? I guess INT_MAX or APR_INT32_MAX is mood given the
result of the discussion in this thread, but it
probably should be APR_BASE64_ENCODE_MAX?
>
>> + encoded = (char *) apr_palloc(p, apr_base64_encode_len((int)len));
>> + apr_base64_encode(encoded, string, (int)len);
>>
>> return encoded;
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>
Regards
Rüdiger
