Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> I haven't looked at the patch in this thread, but most of the time that
> I've seen PATH_MAX used in software, it's indicated a design flaw in an
> interface: use of static buffers for file paths rather than adjusting to
> arbitrary length of file names. You can arguably "fix" it by defining
> PATH_MAX to something arbitrary, but usually the better fix is to go back
> and fix the incorrect choice of API to use a caller-provided buffer or to
> do memory allocation instead.
Indeed so. But if upstream won't take the memory allocation patch
then a "big enough" #define is surely better than not having a dhcp
client.
Ian.
Reply to: