On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:30:59PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
From: Stefano Garzarella
Sent: 23 October 2020 15:10
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 01:21:13PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>---
> 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?
Isn't the canonical error for unknown ioctl codes -ENOTTY?
Oh, thanks for pointing that out!
I had not paid attention to the error returned, but looking at it I
noticed that perhaps the most appropriate would be -ENOIOCTLCMD.
In the ioctl syscall we return -ENOTTY, if the callback returns
-ENOIOCTLCMD.
What do you think?
Stefano
