Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 21 May 2006 16:09:44 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64 |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > On Sunday 21 May 2006 20:56, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:50:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > > On 5/21/06, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > >It's a glibc problem really. > > > > > > > > It's not a glibc problem really. The problem is this stupid error > > > > message in the kernel. We rely in many dozens of places on the kernel > > > > returning ENOSYS in case a syscall is not implemented and we deal with > > > > it appropriately. There is absolutely no justification to print these > > > > messages except perhaps in debug kernels. IMO the sys32_ni_syscall > > > > functions should just return ENOSYS unless you select a special debug > > > > kernel. One doesn't need the kernel to detect missing syscall > > > > implementations, strace can do this as well. > > > > > > You make a good point. In fact, given it's unthrottled, someone > > > with too much time on their hands could easily fill up a /var > > > just by calling unimplemented syscalls this way. > > I never bought this argument because there are tons of printks in the kernel > that can be triggered by everybody. >
Any time anyone identifies such a printk it gets instantly nuked. So if you know of more, please tell.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |