On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Thu Oct 17 14:10:43 2013
> New Revision: 1533087
>
> @@ -2087,12 +2089,9 @@ PROXY_DECLARE(int) ap_proxy_acquire_conn
> (*conn)->close = 0;
> (*conn)->inreslist = 0;
>
> - if (worker->s->uds) {
> + if (*worker->s->uds_path) {
> if ((*conn)->uds_path == NULL) {
> - apr_uri_t puri;
> - if (apr_uri_parse(worker->cp->pool, worker->s->name, &puri)
> == APR_SUCCESS) {
> - (*conn)->uds_path = apr_pstrdup(worker->cp->pool,
> puri.path);
> - }
> + (*conn)->uds_path = apr_pstrdup(worker->cp->pool,
> worker->s->uds_path);
> }
>
Shouldn't that be either :
(*conn)->uds_path = worker->s->uds_path;
or safer :
(*conn)->uds_path = apr_pstrdup((*conn)->pool,
worker->s->uds_path);
to avoid a leak?
Regards.
