linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Remove or convert empty ioctls ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:23:23 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove or convert empty ioctls ?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> On 10/15/2009 11:49 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > There are cases where
> > 
> > 	case IOCWIBBLE:
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > is correct but they are unusual - basically the case where the driver
> > author wants to "support" the ioctl but there is no argument that it can
> > be given which is correct.
> 
> This is the type of case I was referring to.

There is no real reason to believe that

int ioctl()
{
	return -EINVAL;
}

fall into above category.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/