From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 28 02:10:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A71955C for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A5CCA7 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rAS2A1tA049771 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id rAS2A1Td049770; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:01 GMT Message-Id: <201311280210.rAS2A1Td049770@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: David Cundiff Subject: Re: misc/184340: PATH_MAX not interoperable with Linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list Reply-To: David Cundiff List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:10:02 -0000 The following reply was made to PR misc/184340; it has been noted by GNATS. From: David Cundiff To: Brooks Davis Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/184340: PATH_MAX not interoperable with Linux Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:21:40 -0500 On 11/27/2013 6:26 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:03:31PM +0000, David Cundiff wrote: >> Change PATH_MAX in kernel to 4096 from 1024. Should be harmless and will fix the issue in any program that uses PATH_MAX from the kernel headers. Also would allow longer 32-bit unicode paths. > Blindly changing PATH_MAX would be far from harmless. It would bloat > many internal structures and break ABIs and thus could not be done on > a stable branch without quite a bit of work. This is probalby worth > fixing for 11.0, ideally by removing the limit entierly as suggested by > POSIX. > > -- Brooks Now that you mention it both of those would be an issue(I am not much of a programmer). We did just adjust it in the kernel source and several structs needed to be made larger as well. We tested it, everything seems to work, but who knows what other things we don't use broke. The ABI change seems safe enough for my use of the OS as a backup system, probably not for others. I figured I'd mention it as Linux went to 4096. I imagine their reasoning was for allowing larger unicode paths. While 1024 characters for a path seems pretty excessive, 256(with 4 byte characters) seems a bit short. Dave