On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 02:53:52PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:45:21AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> >...
> >
> >>+ else {
> >>+ char *len_end;
> >>+ errno = 0;
> >>+ c->len = ap_strtol(content_length, &len_end, 10);
> >>
> >...
> >
> >>+ if (errno || (c->len < 0) || (len_end &&
> >>*len_end)) {
> >>
> >
> >You should copy the logic used on the trunk to get the correct
> >tests for
> >a strtol parse error:
> >
> > errno || len_end == content_length || *len_end || c->len < 0
> >
>
> The len_end == content_length just means that there was no digits
> seen (possibly a blank)... not sure if we should consider that
> an error.
An empty string, right: I think it's certainly correct to treat that as
invalid C-L header; indeed some strtol's themselves set errno for that
case. (the perl-framework C-L tests picked up this inconsistency a
while back)
> That's why in all other places we've used the (len_end && *len_end)
> check, which ensures that
There is no case where strtol will set len_end = NULL so the first half
of the conditional is redundant. (also len_end was not NULL-initialized
so if it was an attempt to catch cases where strtol does *not* set
len_end, it was not correct ;)
> it's valid *and* that it's seen an invalid char. ap_strtol(" "...)
> returns 0 but isn't an "error" (though in this context, I see your
> point).
