On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:00 AM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > The comment here makes no sense (unix, not windows). But the patch itself > seems reasonable. There is a performance hit, but nothing compared to the > call into stat/lstat. Other's opinions?
Seems risky from regression POV. Safer to map errno of ENAMETOOLONG to the APR_ENAMETOOLONG, in case APR_NAMEMAX is lower than actual limit at runtime. Not sure about httpd patch though, IIUC it only helps a faulty config or module (dirwalk happening for long URI that won't actually be served off disk)