Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64

[Andrew Morton]

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/