On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:35 AM William ML Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, 6:13 am Samuel Thibault, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's not because something is economical that one should want to do it. >> >> You don't even seem to realize that defining PATH_MAX *does* pose >> problem, notably with the actual semantic of realpath(), due to the >> semantic that posix attaches to it. >> > > Economical would be to avoid the rich bug farm that is arbitrary but > unenforced limits. PATH_MAX is an open invitation for buffer overflows on > any modern system.
It is what it is. Folks are going to use PATH_MAX. You can thank Drepper and the Glibc folks for many of the buffer overflow problems in GNU software. Jeff
