Right, you are. Fixed in r1817894. Changes and Lookups happen now in the same main config pool, so the logic for subpools is no longer needed.
Thanks for reviewing! -Stefan > Am 11.12.2017 um 21:08 schrieb Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>: > > > > On 12/07/2017 04:11 PM, ic...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: icing >> Date: Thu Dec 7 15:11:13 2017 >> New Revision: 1817381 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1817381&view=rev >> Log: >> On the trunk: >> >> mod_ssl: renamed section <SSLPolicy to <SSLPolicyDefine. Fixed behaviour >> for new server config merge flag. Denying global, only once used >> directives >> inside a SSLPolicyDefine. >> >> >> Modified: >> httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES >> httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml >> httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/sections.xml >> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c >> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c >> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_policies.h >> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/update_policies.py >> > >> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c?rev=1817381&r1=1817380&r2=1817381&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c Thu Dec 7 15:11:13 >> 2017 >> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ void ssl_config_global_fix(SSLModConfigR >> >> BOOL ssl_config_global_isfixed(SSLModConfigRec *mc) >> { >> - return mc->bFixed; >> + return mc && mc->bFixed; >> } >> >> /* _________________________________________________________________ >> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static apr_array_header_t *get_policy_na >> >> SSLPolicyRec *ssl_policy_lookup(apr_pool_t *pool, const char *name) >> { >> - apr_hash_t *policies = get_policies(pool, 0); >> + apr_hash_t *policies = get_policies(pool, 1); >> if (policies) { >> return apr_hash_get(policies, name, APR_HASH_KEY_STRING); >> } > > Hm, the else case below the lines above does not seem to be needed any > longer, since policies should not be NULL, correct? > > Regards > > Rüdiger
