[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200117231448.btck3qzepvtz5lcp@yavin>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:14:48 +1100
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tycho@...ho.ws, jannh@...gle.com,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, oleg@...hat.com, luto@...capital.net,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gpascutto@...illa.com,
ealvarez@...illa.com, fweimer@...hat.com, jld@...illa.com,
arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] pid: Introduce pidfd_getfd syscall
On 2020-01-17, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:29:27AM -0800, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(pidfd_getfd, int, pidfd, int, fd,
> > + unsigned int, flags)
> > +{
> > + struct pid *pid;
> > + struct fd f;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* flags is currently unused - make sure it's unset */
> > + if (flags)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Is EINVAL the right errno here? Often we use ENOSYS for bad flags to
> syscalls.
I don't think that's right -- every syscall I've seen gives you -EINVAL
for invalid flags (not to mention -ENOSYS would mean userspace would be
confused as to whether the syscall is actually supported by the kernel).
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists