linux-kernel - [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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:20:55 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC] Remove or convert empty ioctls ?

Hi,

while looking into pushing down BKL to ioctls I noticed that we have a
lot of ioctls which simply return -EINVAL or some other fancy error
code.

The question is whether we should convert them to unlocked_ioctl or
simply remove them and let the sys_ioctl code return the default
-ENOTTY error code.

One could argue that this is a user visible change, but OTOH there is
no particular value of EINVAL or any other weird error code when it
just says: there is no ioctl for this fd.

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/