[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527E6EE3.2050109@skarnet.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:20:35 +0000
From: Laurent Bercot <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: request: increase TTY_NAME_MAX in limits.h
> If we change it I think we might as well go with the glibc value of 32
> rather than just increasing it by 4.
That would be great, thanks :)
I'm honestly surprised that those buffers are so small, even in glibc.
Sure, it takes up static space, and in practice a small value works for
most people since it will usually be /dev/something, but since ttyname()
is not supposed to ever fail with ERANGE or any kind of overflow, I was
expecting the buffer to be PATH_MAX bytes. Or even dynamically (re)allocated -
which would pull in malloc(), but text space + a bit of heap space is cheaper
than static space.
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
