linux-kernel - Re: [RFC c/r 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR

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, 28 Jan 2012 00:50:26 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	xemul@...nvz.org, xemul@...allels.com, avagin@...nvz.org,
	kosaki.motohiro@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, glommer@...allels.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	tj@...nel.org, matthltc@...ibm.com, penberg@...nel.org,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, segoon@...nwall.com, adobriyan@...il.com,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [RFC c/r 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall v7

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:33:07PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> writes:
> >> +			ret = kcmp_ptr((long)filp1, (long)filp2, KCMP_FILE);
> >> +		else
> >> +			ret = -ENOENT;
> >
> > If my remember is correct, Andrew pointed out EINVAL is better than ENOENT.
> 
> Ah yes.  And really what it should be is
> 		if (!filp1 || !filp2)
>  			return -EBADF;
> 
> At least EBADF is what you return if it is your process that doesn't
> have the filedescriptor.
> 

Eric, I've sent out version with

		if (filp1 && filp2)
			...
		else
			ret = -EBADF;

maybe you're lookin into previous version?

> >> +			       KCMP_SYSVSEM);
> >> +#else
> >> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> >
> > ENOTSUP is better, I think. because of, EINVAL implicitly mean _caller_ is wrong.
> > but in this case, it is not bad. only the kernel doesn't have enough
> > feature.
> 
> Careful a type compiled out should in principle match a type whose
> support has not been implemented. That is the default case should match
> what happens when you don't compile in sysvipc support.

I don't get it :) Will -EINVAL be enough or not?

	Cyrill
--
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/