Rob Landley <[email protected]> writes: > On 9/15/25 06:26, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I think there is little point in restricting characters unless it's >> done completely, >> because if not then you have to deal with the issue anyway. >> So if the restriction is done, it should be done at a low level, >> perhaps as a kernel option or something. > > Which Linus explicitly rejected 20 years ago because you can always > insert a usb stick (or mount a loopback image, or mount a network > filesystem) made on a system that supports the full range of > characters. Even just a historical one from your own system before you > broke it.
Yep, that was my thinking as well. > Feel free to break The Hurd, I guess? I don't think the Hurd people would like that change at all. :) I would probably include the file name restriction in "arbitrary limits" which the Hurd goes the extra mile to avoid. For example, they do not define PATH_MAX, ARG_MAX, IOV_MAX, MAXHOSTNAMELEN, etc. because it would mean arbitrary limits. Instead they recommend dynamically allocating everything and resizing as needed [1]. Collin [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/porting/guidelines.html
