Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:38:42 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: request: increase TTY_NAME_MAX in limits.h On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:20:35PM +0000, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > >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. I'm not sure exactly what glibc does; technically, there's no reason the size of this internal buffer needs to match TTY_NAME_MAX. I just chose that as a natural size for it. On most systems, where the ttyname is /dev/xxxxx or /dev/pts/xxxxx, 20 should be sufficient and 32 should leave plenty room. Your situation is a bit odd but there's no sense in gratuitously breaking it. Rich
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.