[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26586.1165356671@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:11:11 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, vojtech@...e.cz, ak@....de,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: BUG? atleast >=2.6.19-rc5, x86 chroot on x86_64
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com> wrote:
> I only have 32-bit userspace. When I run your program against
> a directory on a JFS filesystem (msdos ioctls not supported)
> I get this on vanilla 2.6.19:
Can I just check? You're using an x86_64 CPU in 64-bit mode with a 64-bit
kernel, but with a completely 32-bit userspace?
> I only have 32-bit userspace. When I run your program against
> a directory on a JFS filesystem (msdos ioctls not supported)
> I get this on vanilla 2.6.19:
Wait! You're using JFS, not VFAT? Oh... I see.
Okay: It's not the MSDOS/VFAT patch that's wrong. Please don't revert that.
It's the compat ioctl code that's "wrong".
So compat_sys_ioctl() used to return ENOTTY (ENOIOCTLCMD internally) because
the MSDOS ioctl was listed as one that could be translated but it didn't apply
to JFS.
But now, since all the block-based filesystem ioctls have been removed from
that list, you now get EINVAL, not ENOTTY.
> So apparently this is a feature?
Unfortunately, I think it has to be. We could add a master list of ioctls to
be issued with particular errors if the driver doesn't support them, but is it
worth it?
A question for you: Why is userspace assuming that it'll get ENOTTY rather
than EINVAL?
David
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists