You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2008/06/06 16:47:15 UTC

Re: svn commit: r661666 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:00:55AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 05/30/2008 01:49 PM, jorton@apache.org wrote:
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=661666&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Prevent CSRF attacks against the balancer-manager (CVE-2007-6420)
...
>> @@ -619,6 +622,27 @@
>>      }
>>  }
>>  +/* post_config hook: */
>> +static int balancer_init(apr_pool_t *p, apr_pool_t *plog,
>> +                         apr_pool_t *ptemp, server_rec *s)
>> +{
...
>> +
>> +    apr_uuid_get(&balancer_nonce);
>
> Why don't we do apr_uuid_format already here and store the string directly?

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner!  No reason at all - I've changed the 
code as you suggested in r663967; thanks for the review.  (Since this is 
not performance critical code I think the 2.2.x backport is fine as-is)

joe

Re: svn commit: r661666 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c

Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 6, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Joe Orton wrote:

> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:00:55AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 05/30/2008 01:49 PM, jorton@apache.org wrote:
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=661666&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Prevent CSRF attacks against the balancer-manager (CVE-2007-6420)
> ...
>>> @@ -619,6 +622,27 @@
>>>     }
>>> }
>>> +/* post_config hook: */
>>> +static int balancer_init(apr_pool_t *p, apr_pool_t *plog,
>>> +                         apr_pool_t *ptemp, server_rec *s)
>>> +{
> ...
>>> +
>>> +    apr_uuid_get(&balancer_nonce);
>>
>> Why don't we do apr_uuid_format already here and store the string  
>> directly?
>
> Sorry I didn't get to this sooner!  No reason at all - I've changed  
> the
> code as you suggested in r663967; thanks for the review.  (Since  
> this is
> not performance critical code I think the 2.2.x backport is fine as- 
> is)
>

I'll propose after some testing, so if we have time before
the T&R, we could possibly get it in.