Guys, this ticket was last commented on almost a year ago. Is it still an issue?
[jaenicke - Wed May 28 23:02:27 2003]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 25 09:42:02 2003]: > > > On Fri, 23 May 2003, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think my machine has a decent set of patches but as I don't > have root > > > > access I cannot really verify that. Do you think you can do > > > > getconf ARG_MAX and getconf LINE_MAX on your machine such that I > can see > > > > if this is indeed the problem? > > > > > > serv01 24: getconf ARG_MAX > > > 20478 > > > serv01 26: getconf LINE_MAX > > > 2048 > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Lutz > > > > Hi Lutz, > > > > I think this must mean there is something wrong with my workstation > or my > > setup. I have exactly the same values as you so this cannot be the > > limiting factor. Perhaps there is a patch which is missing. > > Hmm. I have no more specific ideas. I did dig out the following: > > PHKL_10176: > The internal buffer within the kernel was created with a > length of 20480 bytes, with no provision for increasing its > size. This patch provides for up to 100 such buffers, with > all but the first allocated only if required (that is, if > more than 20480 bytes of argv/env information is found). > Thus, exec() now supports up to 2048000 bytes of argv/env > information. > > However: this patch has long been superseeded by PHKL_16750 (and other > later versions of this patch)... > > Best regards, > Lutz > > -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
