On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:01:41PM +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:01 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > > > default:
> > > > > > printk("%s: Unimplemented ioctl 0x%x\n", tape->name, cmd);
> > > > > > + unlock_kernel();
> > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > Surely a bug ... shouldn't this return -ENOTTY?
> > > Agreed - ENOTTY.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, where does POSIX happen to specify ENOTTY as the
> > correct one for unimplemented ioctl?
> >
>
> The printk is also wrong, It should have been, Invalid ioctl for the
> device
It shouldn't print anything. That printk lets unprivileged users DoS
the syslog.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
