Re: [discuss] Re: unregister_ioctl32_conversion and modules. ioct l32 revisited.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Hello!
Quoting r. Arnd Bergmann (arnd@xxxxxxxx) "Re: [discuss] Re: unregister_ioctl32_conversion and modules. ioct l32 revisited.":
> On Sünndag 26 Dezember 2004 23:26, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > > It's an internal error code as Arnd pointed out.
> > 
> > can we be sure this will never escape to userspace?  i can think of
> > somewhere else we already do this (EFSCORRUPTED) and it does (somewhat
> > deliberately escape to userspace) and this causes confusion from time
> > to time when applications see 'errno == 990'
> 
> It's safe for the compat ioctl case. If someone wants to use the
> same function for the compat and native handler, it would be a bug
> to return -ENOIOCTLCMD from that handler with the current code.
> 
> To work around this, we could either convert -ENOIOCTLCMD to -EINVAL
> when returning from sys_ioctl().

That would be -ENOTTY, I think.

> Or we could WARN_ON(err ==
> -ENOIOCTLCMD)
> for the native path in order to make the intention clear.
> 
>  Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/