On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 13:44:29 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > 2011/10/16 Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com>: > > More importantly, there is the question you raised of whether this > > should be done in userspace by libc instead. That would avoid > > upstream having to wonder, "why should we care what happens when > > someone using a BSD4.3-style bind() calls our BSD4.4-style kernel"? > > So it's tempting.
Yes, I think this should be handled in glibc, and the sockaddr_un be fixed to match what the kernel expects, the compat code would be there to fix applications built against the bogus sockaddr_un type. > I guess upstream would appreciate if we get rid of the length limit. > It sets the maximum path length for sockets to 104 chars, is that so? I'm not entirely sure what you mean with that. If you mean making sockaddr_un variable size, well that cannot be done, as it's expected that sockaddr_storage can hold space for any sockaddr type. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
