bugtraq - Re: Changes to the filesystem while find is running

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000301c4d253$aaed1840$86c8a8c0@MervaSBS2003.local>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:30:26 +0100
From: <Casper.Dik@....COM>
To: <kbo@....tiscali.de>
Cc: srevilak@...akeasy.net, James Youngman <bugtraq@...ession.spiral-arm.org>,
	parimiv@...haw.com, levon@...ementarian.org,
	bugtraq@...urityfocus.com, bug-findutils@....org
Subject: Re: Changes to the filesystem while find is running - comments?



>I am genuinely surprised that Solaris still has such a
>relatively small PATH_MAX.  Linux has 4096.

Really, there are things you cannot change because of
binary compatibility.  PATH_MAX is one.

Having a 4K path seems rather pointless; the longest path on my
system is 225 bytes; a factor of 4 over that borders on the ridiculous.

>Like other arbitrary system limits of its ilk, PATH_MAX
>is evil, and is one of the more persuasive arguments for
>getting rid of the C language and its fixed-size
>stack-allocated buffers.
>

>char path[PATH_MAX];  /* considered harmful */

Evil, yes, but old source code never dies.

Casper