netdev - Re: [PATCH] vsock: ratelimit unknown ioctl error message

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]

Message-ID: <20201023132542.4f151318@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:25:42 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsock: ratelimit unknown ioctl error message

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:09:47 +0200 Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:21:13PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> >From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >
> >When exercising the kernel with stress-ng with some ioctl tests the
> >"Unknown ioctl" error message is spamming the kernel log at a high
> >rate. Rate limit this message to reduce the noise.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >---
> > net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >index 9e93bc201cc0..b8feb9223454 100644
> >--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
> >@@ -2072,7 +2072,7 @@ static long vsock_dev_do_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> > 		break;
> >
> > 	default:
> >-		pr_err("Unknown ioctl %d\n", cmd);
> >+		pr_err_ratelimited("Unknown ioctl %d\n", cmd);  
> 
> Make sense, or maybe can we remove the error message returning only the
> -EINVAL?

+1

> Both cases are fine for me:
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>