linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions

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:	Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:38:19 -0800
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
	Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:55:06 +0100
Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:

> Am 08.03.2009 01:35 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:22:28 +0100
> > Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:
> > 
> >> Am 07.03.2009 23:26 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> [...]
> >>> ENODEV is what would be more appropriate.
> >> Not at all. ENODEV means "no such device", which would be quite
> >> wrong. The device does exist and is in all probability working
> >> perfectly fine. It just doesn't implement that particular ioctl.
> > 
> > then -ENOTTY is the right answer
> 
> Interesting, though slightly surprising proposition.
> "Not a typewriter" is certainly correct. :-)
> 
> "Not a tty device", however, which I take is the customary
> interpretation, much less clearly so. The device most certainly
> is a tty device. It just happens to know a few additional ioctl
> commands which may or may not be implemented, depending on the
> kernel config.
> 
> Not to question your authority, but I would really like a second
> opinion on that issue before I adopt your proposition, simply to
> minimize the risk of getting another objection from someone else
> who feels that ENOTTY is inappropriate in that situation.


from the ioctl manpage:

ERRORS
	[snip]

       ENOTTY The specified request does not apply to the kind of
       object that the descriptor d references.



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/