On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:01:29 +0200 Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:06:19 +0800 > Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/26/18 at 07:38pm, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:12:10 +0800 > > > Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On 03/26/18 at 05:08pm, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > On 03/20/18 at 04:56pm, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, this is still used in latest version. kernel does not > > > > > return such error number, I might not say clearly previously. > > > > > Please check the kernel code, the only one place I know is > > > > > because no kdump support in power kexec_file: > > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/machine_kexec_file_64.c > > > > > > > > > > /* We don't support crash kernels yet. */ > > > > > if (image->type == KEXEC_TYPE_CRASH) > > > > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > > > > > > > > > So I suggest not checking this as well since -ENOTSUPP is not > > > > > populated in userspace headers, and -ENOTSUP is not used at all. > > > > > > > > > > Also as I mentioned in another reply -EINVAL and -ENOEXEC is > > > > > also not ncessary. > > > > > > > > > > For -ENOTSUP, maybe someone can submit a patch to switch to > > > > > -ENOTSUPP so that userspace can check it. > > > > > Ccing Thiago and Hari for the -ENOTSUPP errno issue. > > > > > > > > Oops for the hurry reply, I means -ENOTSUPP might be able to > > > > replaced with -EOPNOTSUPP, a similar change like this: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8490791/ > > > > > > Thanks for catching this. In Linux ENOTSUPP with extra P is > > > different from EOPNOTSUPP and ENOTSUP (single P). Since we are > > > talking to the kernel and it returns the double P ENOTSUPP we need > > > to define it in kexec as well. And we should check ENOTSUP with > > > single P in case somebody some day thinks that returning undefined > > > error codes to userspace is not nice like in the patch above. > > > > I'm not sure if we can define it in kexec-tools since they are used > > in kernel only.. > > We define the KEXEC_FILE_LOAD syscall numbers so why not ENOTSUPP? Essentially, because syscall numbers will be added to Linux uapi sooner or later, but ENOTSUPP is meant to stay kernel-internal. It is declared in include/linux/errno.h, which says: * These should never be seen by user programs. In other words, it is already a kernel bug that these error codes can are currently returned to user space. Petr T _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
