Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 May 2006 14:50:00 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64 |
| |
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.
Dave
-- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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/
| |