Questions
Am I misinterpreting PATH_MAX?
Do I need to start worrying how many other limits are not enforced or are incorrectly enforced?
Research platform
uname -a Linux xxxxxx.com 2.6.18-164.el5 #1 SMP Thu Sep 3 03:28:30 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
From /etc/fstab I see that the filesystem I'm manipulating is ext3. Maybe PATH_MAX is irrelevant and the filesystem is responsible for handling limits?
Purpose
I was attempting to determine if Apache 2.2.3 would properly process a GET where the length of the pathname (all directory components plus trailing filename) is long (perhaps 300 or so bytes).
What I typed
I started this investigation by running this shell script:
d="256 byte string here" while [ 1 ]; do mkdir $d if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then break fi cd $d if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then break fi done pwd
This script's execution failed but I ended up with a 522 directory hierarchy where the bottom-most file had a pathname that wa开发者_如何学Gos 131273 bytes long.
You are misinterpreting PATH-MAX
-- it is a limit on the API of certain functions. It is not a limit on the operating system.
Here's a related blog post
精彩评论