Re: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thanks to a lot of work by the Hurd folks, there's quite a bit less than
> there used to be. :)
>
> 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.
I tend to see upstreams defining their own PATH_MAX rather than
calling pathconf. Perhaps there needs to be a lintian warning about
that.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: