On 4/1/20 11:44 PM, Mike Rumph wrote:
> I'm not very familiar with this code, so my questions might not make sense.
>
> But take a look at the following two code segments in
> ssl_io_filter_coalesce():
>
> for (e = APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(bb);
> e != APR_BRIGADE_SENTINEL(bb)
> && !APR_BUCKET_IS_METADATA(e)
> && e->length != (apr_size_t)-1
> && e->length < COALESCE_BYTES
> && (buffered + bytes + e->length) < COALESCE_BYTES;
>
> and
>
> if (rv == APR_SUCCESS) {
> /* If the read above made the bucket morph, it may now fit
> * entirely within the buffer. Otherwise, split it so it does
> * fit. */
> if (e->length >= COALESCE_BYTES
> || e->length + buffered + bytes >= COALESCE_BYTES) {
> rv = apr_bucket_split(e, COALESCE_BYTES - (buffered + bytes));
> }
>
> Does this mean that either buffered or bytes might be negative?
> Otherwise, testing both "e->length" and "e->length + buffered + bytes"
> against COALESCE_BYTES seems redundant.
I guess they are some sort redundant. Joe?
Regards
Rüdiger
