I've been playing with UBSan[1] which catches undefined behaviour, found a
couple of interesting things so far.
One is with event, I messed with the line numbers but the error is:
event.c:3620:13: runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is
declared to never be null
from the mem
On 02/14/2020 10:08 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> I've been playing with UBSan[1] which catches undefined behaviour, found a
> couple of interesting things so far.
>
> One is with event, I messed with the line numbers but the error is:
>
> event.c:3620:13: runtime error: null pointer passed as argum
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 02/14/2020 10:08 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> > I've been playing with UBSan[1] which catches undefined behaviour, found a
> > couple of interesting things so far.
> >
> > One is with event, I messed with the line numbers but the erro
Hi,
The same code exists in 'worker', should it be fixed as well?
CJ
Le 14/02/2020 à 11:47, jor...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: jorton
Date: Fri Feb 14 10:47:36 2020
New Revision: 1874011
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1874011&view=rev
Log:
* server/mpm/event/event.c (event_open_logs):
Hi,
purely speculative, but does a:
apr_table_set(headers, "Connection", "close");
around line 812 of md_oscp.c also makes sense?
CJ
Le 14/02/2020 à 10:38, rpl...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: rpluem
Date: Fri Feb 14 09:38:12 2020
New Revision: 1874007
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev
On 2/14/20 6:05 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Hi,
>
> purely speculative, but does a:
> apr_table_set(headers, "Connection", "close");
>
> around line 812 of md_oscp.c also makes sense?
>
I think it makes absolutely sense.
Giovanni
> CJ
>
> Le 14/02/2020 à 10:38, rpl...@apache.o
On 02/14/2020 06:05 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Hi,
>
> purely speculative, but does a:
> apr_table_set(headers, "Connection", "close");
>
> around line 812 of md_oscp.c also makes sense?
In general I guess it could make sense, but I am not sure if this is the
correct way to
On 02/14/2020 05:17 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The same code exists in 'worker', should it be fixed as well?
I would think so.
Regards
Rüdiger
