3APA3A wrote: > Dear Ben Hutchings, > > > If someone uses pathconf to determine buffer size it's his own problem > and he creates vulnerability by himself. You can list such applications > as vulnerable to race conditions. <snip> > NAME_MAX is defined in limits.h and should be 255 according to latest > POSIX extension. I see no problem with POSIX standard in this case. > > See: > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/limits.h.html <snip> If you had read the above page more carefully, you would have seen these paragraphs: "The values in the following list may be constants within an implementation or may vary from one pathname to another. For example, file systems or directories may have different characteristics. "A definition of one of the values shall be omitted from the <limits.h> header on specific implementations where the corresponding value is equal to or greater than the stated minimum, but where the value can vary depending on the file to which it is applied. The actual value supported for a specific pathname shall be provided by the pathconf() function." -- Ben Hutchings When you say `I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare ... and say `Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'. - Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/