On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:57:08 +0200, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Zhang Rui <[email protected]> > > In RFC 2616, this was explicitly said to be an absolute url, > while it in an upcoming draft [1] is allowed to be relative as well. > > [1] > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25#section-7.1.2 > --- > libavformat/http.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libavformat/http.c b/libavformat/http.c > index a26ec2a..eb08dfe 100644 > --- a/libavformat/http.c > +++ b/libavformat/http.c > @@ -335,7 +335,10 @@ static int process_line(URLContext *h, char *line, int > line_count, > while (av_isspace(*p)) > p++; > if (!av_strcasecmp(tag, "Location")) { > - av_strlcpy(s->location, p, sizeof(s->location)); > + char redirected_location[MAX_URL_SIZE]; > + ff_make_absolute_url(redirected_location, > sizeof(redirected_location), > + s->location, p); > + av_strlcpy(s->location, redirected_location, > sizeof(s->location)); > *new_location = 1; > } else if (!av_strcasecmp (tag, "Content-Length") && s->filesize == > -1) { > s->filesize = strtoll(p, NULL, 10); > -- > 1.7.9.4 >
Looks sane enough -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
