On Nov 16 20:25, Christian Franke wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> Thanks for this patch. Apart from the missing ChangeLog I'm inclined >> to apply it to the upcoming 1.5.25 release, but I don't like to have it >> in HEAD as is. > > Thanks, I would appreciate to have this issue fixed in the bugfix release. > > Here is a new version of the patch and a ChangeLog. > > The names "." and ".." are now also encoded. Theses are also valid as > Key/Value Names and ".." may result in infinite recursion.
Thanks, I've tested it on my machine and I've applied the patch to the cr-0x5f1 branch. >> So, for HEAD I'd like to ask you to allow arbitrary path lengths in your >> code. Personally I could live with restricting registry paths to >> PATH_MAX as well. > > Agree. Probably Cygwin should never descend paths that exceed PATH_MAX, as > an application using PATH_MAX may have no buffer overflow check. I agree. >> While you're digging in registry code anyway... would you be interested >> to convert the entire registry code to wide char and long path names? >> I'd be glad for any help. > > I will have a look at it, but be patient. Is current HEAD a reasonable > starting point or is there a better (more stable) snapshot? Usually HEAD is the *only* valid starting point. Thanks again for the patch, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat