From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 11 08:30:10 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC04106564A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEB48FC08 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9B8UAP5054037 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9B8UADn054033; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 GMT Message-Id: <201110110830.p9B8UADn054033@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Garrett Cooper Cc: Subject: Re: kern/161481: mount fails with ENAMETOOLONG with path shorter than 255 // 1023 characters X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Garrett Cooper List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:30:10 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/161481; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Garrett Cooper To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Cc: Garrett Cooper Subject: Re: kern/161481: mount fails with ENAMETOOLONG with path shorter than 255 // 1023 characters Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:57:44 -0700 (PDT) I looked into this more closely after I submitted the bug and the problem is the arbitrarily short value attached to MNAMELEN: 122537 mckusick #define MNAMELEN 88 /* size of on/from name bufs */ The value has changed over the years (all the way back to the mid-90s) from 90 to 70 to 80 to 88, but each time the author doesn't clearly state why the change was required. Testing out a kernel with the newly imposed limits to determine if the new limit is functional and/or there's a major performance regression with the new limit. Thanks, -Garrett