On Mi, 07.08.24 13:09, Vít Ondruch (vondr...@redhat.com) wrote: > With new RPM, I hit the limit in two packages: > > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-abrt > > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-pg > > > I have read: > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/367008/why-is-socket-path-length-limited-to-a-hundred-chars > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34829600/why-is-the-maximal-path-length-allowed-for-unix-sockets-on-linux-108 > > > But I still wonder why we should live with such limitation in 21st century.
You don't really have to live with such a limitation. In systemd we have code that works around this limitation via O_PATH. i.e. when connect()ing you first open the socket inode with O_PATH, and then you fire the connect() specifying /proc/self/fd/<fd> as path. That always fits into the 108ch limit. bind()ing to an overly long unix socket path is also doable, but harder (since you cannot O_PATH on an inode that doesn't exist yet). The way I'd do it is via chdir() to the dir of the target path and binding to a relative path then. But chdir() is of course icky, since it's a global property of a process, hence will affect all threads. Hence, maybe do this in a short-lived forked off process. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
