On 24.07.2012 19:40, Joe Orton wrote:
The test case for PR 45434 seems to have regressed across 2.2->2.4.

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45434

I have not tried to understand the mechanics here, but a dumb
side-by-side analysis found a missing piece, below.  2.2 hardcodes this
as "real + 11" but 2.4 uses the constant elsewhere.  Any reason why this
would be wrong?  It fixes the test case I added to t/modules/proxy.t.

2.2.x code for reference:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?annotate=1058624#l1090

Index: modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
===================================================================
--- modules/proxy/proxy_util.c  (revision 1365029)
+++ modules/proxy/proxy_util.c  (working copy)
@@ -860,7 +860,7 @@
              (balancer = ap_proxy_get_balancer(r->pool, sconf, real, 1))) {
              int n, l3 = 0;
              proxy_worker **worker = (proxy_worker **)balancer->workers->elts;
-            const char *urlpart = ap_strchr_c(real, '/');
+            const char *urlpart = ap_strchr_c(real + sizeof(BALANCER_PREFIX) - 
1, '/');
              if (urlpart) {
                  if (!urlpart[1])
                      urlpart = NULL;


The code including the offset was introduced in trunk in

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=771587

and then ported back to 2.2 in

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=777191

Later in first the offset got replaced by using a separate function call first which returned a new variable "bname" which was already advanced by the correct offset and then put that one into ap_strchr_c:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/proxy_util.c?r1=1058621&r2=1058622&diff_format=h

A bit later the function was rearranged to not return a char * but a boolean and the new variable was removed again. The old variable "real" was now used without the previous offset. That seems to be the culprit and a bug. There's no indication, that this was intentional.

So: Your change seems good to me.

Regards,

Rainer

Reply via email to