Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sun May 21 2006 - 19:09:42 EST
Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 20:56, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:50:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > 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.
> I never bought this argument because there are tons of printks in the kernel
> that can be triggered by everybody.
Any time anyone identifies such a printk it gets instantly nuked. So if
you know of more, please tell.
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/