Re: sem_open(2) and ENAMETOOLONG

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:12:43PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:42:52PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>  > >> I read in the POSIX resources that the limit is defined by
>  > >> PATH_MAX or its variation:
>  > >> 
>  > >> ENAMETOOLONG The length of the name argument exceeds {PATH_MAX}
>  > >> or a pathname component is longer than {NAME_MAX}.
>  > > 
>  > > Wait, are sem_open() names names (single components) or whole
>  > > paths? I thought they were single components.
>  > 
>  > There are possible limits for whole paths and components. NetBSD keeps
>  > 14 for the whole name.
> 
> That wasn't the question -- the question is what the semantics of
> sem_open() names are supposed to be.

They don't really have any. They are an independent namespace and the
ENAMETOOLONG error was actually added retrospective. It is not even
clear why any of the VFS based limits are relevant...

Joerg