On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:06:05PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: [...] > Eric also suggests a private variable to avoid being subject to > changes to PATH_MAX. Then we can indeed also choose an arbitrary lower > length than current PATH_MAX. Good. > FWIW, there is a workaround for users with deeply nested paths: the > path passed does not have to be absolute. It is literally what is > passed on the command line to iptables right now, including relative > addresses. If iptables userspace always expects to have the bpf file repository in some given location (suggesting to have a directory that we specify at ./configure time, similar to what we do with connlabel.conf), then I think we can rely on relative paths. Would this be flexible enough for your usecase? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
