On Fri 2017-02-17 04:42:14 -0500, Justus Winter wrote:
> Well, I tested it on all systems I had access to at that time. I could
> have written a small test program, and asked people to run it on systems
> we don't have access to. But we never got to that point :(
That would be a way to advance t
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> On Thu 2017-02-16 04:12:36 -0500, Justus Winter wrote:
>> That is still wrong. The length of the path of the socket is not
>> limited in any way, the length of the path passed to connect is.
>
> this is a clever approach to *connect* to such a socket,
Yes.
> on so
On Thu 2017-02-16 11:51:07 -0500, Werner Koch wrote:
> So that the /var/run/user/ directory is not cluttered with many
> directories. Setting a different GNUPGHOME is an exception and thus it
> is fine to require an explicit creation. Remember that not /var/run
> does not need to be a temporary d
On Thu 2017-02-16 04:12:36 -0500, Justus Winter wrote:
> That is still wrong. The length of the path of the socket is not
> limited in any way, the length of the path passed to connect is.
this is a clever approach to *connect* to such a socket, on some
systems.
But if you ever use getsockname (
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:12, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> Why does this need to be created manually? Why not try to create it if
> possible the first time there's a chance to use it, no matter what?
So that the /var/run/user/ directory is not cluttered with many
directories. Setting a different
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:12, jus...@g10code.com said:
> That is still wrong. The length of the path of the socket is not
> limited in any way, the length of the path passed to connect is.
That is your experience from Linux but that is not in general true. The
maximum length of a file length is li
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> [ Unknown signature status ]
> Hi all--
>
> sorry for the late followup on this thread:
>
> On Mon 2017-01-16 14:16:28 -0500, Werner Koch wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:39, gn...@jelmail.com said:
>>> Just experimenting in a sandbox homedir, I noticed that the home
On Wed 2017-02-15 12:12:23 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Why does this need to be created manually? Why not try to create it if
> possible the first time there's a chance to use it, no matter what?
[…]
> What does GnuPG gain from having a known failure mode that requires a
> manual fix?
So
Hi all--
sorry for the late followup on this thread:
On Mon 2017-01-16 14:16:28 -0500, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:39, gn...@jelmail.com said:
>> Just experimenting in a sandbox homedir, I noticed that the homedir path
>> needs to be below a certain size.
>
> That is because on mo
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:39, gn...@jelmail.com said:
> Just experimenting in a sandbox homedir, I noticed that the homedir path
> needs to be below a certain size.
That is because on most Unix systems the file name for local socket is
limited in size. Local sockets are used for communication betwee
Just experimenting in a sandbox homedir, I noticed that the homedir path
needs to be below a certain size.
$ pwd
/home/user/a////eee/fff/ggg
$ mkdir -m 700 alice.gpg
$ gpg --homedir alice.gpg --gen-key
gpg: can't connect to t
11 matches
Mail list logo
