Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:45:32 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: d@delphij.net, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com> Cc: mexas@bris.ac.uk, rmacklem@uoguelph.ca, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: old bug: mount_nfs path/name is limited to 88 chars Message-ID: <54BE3FDC.9030904@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <54BDA9DD.5040608@delphij.net> References: <1401700998.16283447.1421681564732.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <201501191544.t0JFiP7O027952@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> <CAKFCL4Vv5Uf7p737uE-riDBw57KTJ7r7QSmn7Bj7i=gn1yo5UA@mail.gmail.com> <99F7DA1A-66EB-4F69-BAFA-0D72E4207248@gmail.com> <54BDA9DD.5040608@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2015-01-20 2:05, Xin Li wrote: >> Doing it in 11 makes sense since there is a compat layer for 10 >> now… if I knew all of the steps I would happily do them as annoys >> me from time to time as well with the path length issue. > > Compat layer may break applications in other funny ways and we > probably have to return e.g. ENAMETOOLONG for legacy applications if > the names are too long to fit into the buffer, but I don't see any > easy solution either: I wish we have bumped it in 2003 when the struct > receives its first big revamp by bumping all statistic fields to 64-bit. On 2015-01-20 1:23, Allan Jude wrote:> On 2015-01-19 16:20, Garrett > > Especially with ZFS, I find I have a lot more mounts now, under longer > and longer path names, and then I have > .zfs/snapshots/snapshotnamehere/path/to/file > > etc. > > Definitely a +1 for "this is something we need for 11" +1 Well to be honest: Things are already broken for me ATM. I do have paths that are too long, and tools trip over it. Things like building the locate database just don't have everything. Which is a pain, especially for finding things fast in backups of ZFS, where the path is even more convoluted that what Allan suggests So whether being bitten by the cat of the dog: it still hurts. Perhaps it is an intermediate solution to add new settings which are going to be used for userspace programs, like USER_MNAMELEN and USER_PATH_MAX. It will certainly give ENAMETOOLONG back when it involves systemcalls. But then a lot of the other tool stuff would just function. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54BE3FDC.9030904>