> 
> They have a given program, which they cannot change, but apparently can 
> accept 256 kB of text in arguments, and the preferred workaround is to 
> recompile the kernel.

Only workarounds' possible. Kinda like disabling a vulnerable component before 
a patch comes out.

> 
> I am not sure what your suggestion is here: There surely ought to be better 
> ways to write this program, but that option seems to not be available.

Yes, and by all mean, this program should be replaced with a better alternative.

This program is badly broken for its (never intended) purpose, asking the 
standard 
developers to alter the definition of the specs and wait for operating system 
vendors
to catch up is NOT the solution.

> 
> Anyway, I have no use for it myself, only noticed that some have raised the 
> issue.
> 

Options are presented, I guess this concludes this (somewhatly?) off-topic 
discussion here.

  • Long command line argumen... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • 回复: Long command lin... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re: Long command... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: Long com... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • Re: Long... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: Long com... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • Re: Long... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
            • Re:... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Guy Harris via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Hans Åberg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Guy Harris via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to