I am having some issue searching Bugzilla for any issue involving
process_regexp in mod_headers.c .
It finds nothing, so I am assuming I did something wrong in my search. Will
file bug if not already filed.
We are investigating an infinite loop (stack overflow) issue, caused by
"securing" a sy
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:04 PM Jason Pyeron wrote:
>
> I am having some issue searching Bugzilla for any issue involving
> process_regexp in mod_headers.c .
>
> It finds nothing, so I am assuming I did something wrong in my search. Will
> file bug if not already filed.
>
> We are investigating a
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:11 AM Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:04 PM Jason Pyeron wrote:
> >
> > I am having some issue searching Bugzilla for any issue involving
> > process_regexp in mod_headers.c .
> >
> > It finds nothing, so I am assuming I did something wrong in my search.
> -Original Message-
> From: Yann Ylavic
> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 9:09 AM
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:11 AM Eric Covener wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:04 PM Jason Pyeron wrote:
> > >
> > > I am having some issue searching Bugzilla for any issue involving
> > > process
On 1/5/24 3:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:11 AM Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:04 PM Jason Pyeron wrote:
>>> I am having some issue searching Bugzilla for any issue involving
>>> process_regexp in mod_headers.c .
>>>
>>> It finds nothing, so I am assumi
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:49 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 1/5/24 3:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > process_regexp.diff
> >
> > Index: modules/metadata/mod_headers.c
> > ===
> > --- modules/metadata/mod_headers.c(revision 1914
On 1/8/24 1:37 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 10:49 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>> On 1/5/24 3:08 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
>>> process_regexp.diff
>>>
>>> Index: modules/metadata/mod_headers.c
>>> ===
>>> --- mod
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:54 PM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 1/8/24 1:37 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > As noted in v2 we have an issue here by "losing" the beginning of the
> > value on recursion:
> > /* XXX: recursing by using AP_REG_NOTBOL (because we are not at
> > ^
> >