You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to bugs@httpd.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2010/01/19 21:17:57 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48359] Buffer overflow related to setting
RequestHeader
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48359
--- Comment #4 from Will Rowe <wr...@apache.org> 2010-01-19 12:17:53 UTC ---
I agree with Jake; letting the subrequest manipulate the input headers is
probably not the way to go; I'd suggest reverting the trunk patch and applying
his proposed solution.
Copying the input header array seems like a better patch than the solution
in trunk, and more consistant with user and module author expectations.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48359] Buffer overflow related to setting RequestHeader
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48359
> --- Comment #4 from Will Rowe <wr...@apache.org> 2010-01-19 12:17:53 UTC ---
> I agree with Jake; letting the subrequest manipulate the input headers is
> probably not the way to go; I'd suggest reverting the trunk patch and applying
> his proposed solution.
>
> Copying the input header array seems like a better patch than the solution
> in trunk, and more consistant with user and module author expectations.
Thoughts? I'd like to see this advance to 2.2 before we tag again, but if Trunk
needs adjustment before backporting, it seems silly to add it to STATUS.