Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 17:20:35 +0000
From: Laurent Bercot <>
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.


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.