Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:23:40 +0300
From:      Samy Al Bahra <samy@kerneled.com>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        obrien@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Why is max groups set so low (16)?
Message-ID:  <20031130002340.57e5fb60.samy@kerneled.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031126132013.E72053@gamplex.bde.org>
References:  <20031126021321.GA55417@dragon.nuxi.com> <20031126132013.E72053@gamplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:37:15 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote:

> The binary compatibility problems seem to be small.  libc doesn't have
> any references at all to NGROUPS_MAX except in man pages, but that is
> partly because it mostly misspells NGROUPS_MAX as NGROUPS.

This isn't a misspelling, param.h defines the following:
#define NGROUPS         NGROUPS_MAX     /* max number groups */

> getgroups(2) and setgroups(2) are limited by whatever the kernel
> wants, not by their API, although their documentation says that there
> is a compile-time limit

setgroups does not allow a user to be in a a greater number of groups
than NGROUPS. It references this macro directly, meaning, it is a
compile-time limit.

Could you elaborate on what you mean exactly by "whatever the kernel
wants"?

--
+-----------------------------------+
| Samy Al Bahra | samy@kerneled.com |
|-----------------------------------|
|     B3A7 F5BE B2AE 67B1 AC4B      |
|     0983 956D 1F4A AA54 47CB      |
|-----------------------------------|
|     http://www.kerneled.com       |
+-----------------------------------+



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031130002340.57e5fb60.samy>