netdev - RE: Use of ENOTSUPP in drivers?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D458F3E@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:41:57 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Ben Hutchings' <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Use of ENOTSUPP in drivers?

From: Ben Hutchings
> I believe they should all be patched.  According to
> include/linux/errno.h, ENOTSUPP is meant for use in the NFSv3 code only.
> (But it's apparently erroneously used *all over* the tree, not just in
> net drivers!)

The 'real' problem is that there are quite a few very specific errno
values, but very few general ones.
I suspect that once (way back in the 1980s - the definitions predate linux)
adding new errno values was easy, and some that might have been general
got documented for their single use - the text for EAGAIN used to be
"No more processes".
New errno values were added for some subsystems (like NFS) but documented
with subsystem-specific texts.
So there are few generic errno codes except EINVAL and ENXIO - neither
of which is helpful.
Nothing for thinks like:
- I don't understand the request.
- I don't support the request.
- Some internal limit reached.
etc.

	David