[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <457A6E83.2070708@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 09:06:27 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 7635] New: ioctl(fd,TCSBRK,1) on socket yields EFAULT,
expected EINVAL/ENOTTY
David Miller a écrit :
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:00:21 -0800
>
>> That is not true on BSD or other unix standardish ioctl's.
>> There are no conflicts between the TIOC... values and the SIOC... values
>
> There is absolutely nothing that we can do about this under
> Linux without breaking every single application out there.
>
> We allocated these values a long long time ago, before we
> got the idea that we should perhaps use some kind of
> macro system (as we mostly do now) to keep the values from
> conflicting.
>
>> Seems like one of those annoying standards compliance test
>> return value bugs that shouldn't really hit an application.
>
> Being non-compliant, and being unable to become compliant,
> it actually a feature and a huge weight off of our shoulders,
> don't you think? :-)
Well, as long you/we dont break isattty() (which try an
ioctl(fd,TCGETS,&termios) on the fd), it should be OK.
So TCGETS *MUST* return an error on a socket (and other non tty files)
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists