Don't know, but in general arbitrarily set limits are bad. Note, the bug is not in the long name. The bug is in the inability of system services to handle a long device name. That I imagine is hard to fix, but this is exactly what needs fixing. Limiting the name length is akin to band aid.
In theory I would agree, but in practice (which is different from theory, as the classic saying goes), I disagree; I have another comment here about the perils of debating limits, but I don't think designing the system to handle 500,000-character names would be a good thing either, because we know from experience that if something can be abused, it will. Needlessly making something "limitless" is an invitation to test that --- and in the real world, we know that there definitely are limits even if they are as volatile as "available memory"; and doing something like that is not good for reliability.
