Improve httpd string value fetching efficiency (IDFGH-14524)

[Adam5Wu]

Description

• Avoid using strlcpy() when source is not null-terminated;
• Also avoid duplicate strlen() when strlcpy() is used.

strlcpy() will implicitly perform a strlen() and report the size of source string as return value [1].
This means calling strlcpy() when source string is no null-terminated (for the intended scope) will incur a high penalty.

For example, query key-values are delimited by &, but calling strlcpy() will always have to traverse to the very end of all query key-values. Similarly for cookies.

Additionally, although not 100% positive, the use of strlcpy() in verify_url() could be unsafe -- as the entire buffer may not be null terminated, which could lead to crash if strlcpy() scans beyond certain memory region boundaries...

[1] https://linux.die.net/man/3/strlcpy

Related

Testing

Just performance improvements, no externally obverable behavioral differences.

---

Checklist

Before submitting a Pull Request, please ensure the following:

• 🚨 This PR does not introduce breaking changes.
• All CI checks (GH Actions) pass.
• [n/a] Documentation is updated as needed.
• [n/a] Tests are updated or added as necessary.
• Code is well-commented, especially in complex areas.
• Git history is clean — commits are squashed to the minimum necessary.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

	Messages
📖	🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋 Hello Adam5Wu, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests via this public GitHub repository.

This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved, we synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 16d9b94

[hrushikesh430]

sha=16d9b94c563dda4c35c96393c58d53f75a2edc1c