linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:26:19 -0500
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
        Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>
Cc:     xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for
 unimplemented IOCTLs



On 02/09/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.02.17 at 15:17, <paul.durrant@...rix.com> wrote:
>> The code goes so far as to set the default return code to -ENOSYS but
>> then overrides this to -EINVAL in the switch() statement's default
>> case.
>
> If you already change this, isn't -ENOTTY the traditional way of
> indicating unsupported ioctls?

In fact, a while ago David submitted a patch to do just that:

https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-08/msg00744.html

but it never went anywhere.

My question is whether anyone might be relying on current error return 
behavior.


-boris