From owner-freebsd-audit  Fri Mar  2 10:14:14 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51EA37B719
	for <audit@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  2 Mar 2001 10:14:11 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f22IE3d58463;
	Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:14:06 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Message-Id: <200103021814.f22IE3d58463@harmony.village.org>
To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>
Subject: Re: PATH_MAX vs MAXPATHLEN 
Cc: audit@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:51:06 CST."
		<20010302115105.A63024@hamlet.nectar.com> 
References: <20010302115105.A63024@hamlet.nectar.com>  <200103020206.f2226Md53114@harmony.village.org> 
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:14:02 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In message <20010302115105.A63024@hamlet.nectar.com> "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
: I think (strlen(path) > PATH_MAX) is now an off-by-one error,
: considering the thread of yesterday.  It is definately so in
: some of the code you included (e.g. `char p_path[PATH_MAX]').

It was an off by one error yesterday too :-).

: These are probably just the result of doing s/MAXPATHLEN + 1/PATH_MAX/
: in definitions, but s/MAXPATHLEN/PATH_MAX/ in comparisons.

But I didn't do anything like that...  BTW, which code fragment are we
talking about?

Warner

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message