diff mbox

[1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented IOCTLs

Message ID 1486649866-4869-2-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Paul Durrant Feb. 9, 2017, 2:17 p.m. UTC
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.

This patch removes this pointless and incorrect override.

Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
---
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
 drivers/xen/privcmd.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Jan Beulich Feb. 9, 2017, 2:40 p.m. UTC | #1
>>> On 09.02.17 at 15:17, <paul.durrant@citrix.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?

Jan
Boris Ostrovsky Feb. 9, 2017, 3:26 p.m. UTC | #2
On 02/09/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.02.17 at 15:17, <paul.durrant@citrix.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
Paul Durrant Feb. 9, 2017, 3:28 p.m. UTC | #3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: 09 February 2017 15:26
> To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>; Paul Durrant
> <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>;
> linux-kernel@vger.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@citrix.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.

I doubt it. It's certainly not a safe thing to do anyway. I'll change to -ENOTTY in v2 of the patch.

  Paul

> 
> 
> -boris
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
index 6e3306f..b4e5e27 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c
@@ -572,7 +572,6 @@  static long privcmd_ioctl(struct file *file,
 		break;
 
 	default:
-		ret = -EINVAL;
 		break;
 	}