Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64
From: Dave Jones
Date: Sun May 21 2006 - 14:55:32 EST
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >It's a glibc problem really.
> It's not a glibc problem really. The problem is this stupid error
> message in the kernel. We rely in many dozens of places on the kernel
> returning ENOSYS in case a syscall is not implemented and we deal with
> it appropriately. There is absolutely no justification to print these
> messages except perhaps in debug kernels. IMO the sys32_ni_syscall
> functions should just return ENOSYS unless you select a special debug
> kernel. One doesn't need the kernel to detect missing syscall
> implementations, strace can do this as well.
You make a good point. In fact, given it's unthrottled, someone
with too much time on their hands could easily fill up a /var
just by calling unimplemented syscalls this way.
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/