The Security Phase

[Craig Woodford <cw...@hotmail.com>]

Er.  Hi.

These remarks are in reference to source code published at 
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/developer/request.html.

switch (ap_satisfies(r)) {
case SATISFY_ALL:
case SATISFY_NOSPEC:
...

Seems to me the case for SATISFY_ALL does nothing useful.  Is there a 
missing break statement?  If no, then why not comment out this case until it 
includes code that actually does somethingl?

Feel free to tell me where to go, if you think that's appropriate.

Craig

_________________________________________________________________
Smart Saving with ING Direct – earn 5.25% p.a. variable rate:  
http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;7249209;8842331;n?http://www.ingdirect.com.au/burst6offer.asp?id=8

Re: The Security Phase

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* "Craig Woodford" <cw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> These remarks are in reference to source code published at 
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/developer/request.html.
> 
> switch (ap_satisfies(r)) {
> case SATISFY_ALL:
> case SATISFY_NOSPEC:
> ...
> 
> Seems to me the case for SATISFY_ALL does nothing useful.  Is there a 
> missing break statement?  If no, then why not comment out this case until
> it includes code that actually does somethingl?

This code means that for satisfy_all and satisfy_nospec the same code is
executed. Because there's no break statement, satisfy_all just falls
through.

> Feel free to tell me where to go, if you think that's appropriate.

I'd suggest a good C book ;-)

nd