| Message ID | 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-v1-1-5bf374fabffe@weissschuh.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Johannes Berg |
| Headers | show |
| Series | rfkill: return ENOTTY on invalid ioctl | expand |
On 11/1/23 20:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > For unknown ioctls the correct error is > ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device". For sure! I would like to learn more of why this is not an UAPI breaking change? > > ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall > is not available at all. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net> > --- > net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c > index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644 > --- a/net/rfkill/core.c > +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c > @@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, > unsigned long arg) > { > struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data; > - int ret = -ENOSYS; > + int ret = -ENOTTY; > u32 size; > > if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC) > - return -ENOSYS; > + return -ENOTTY; > > mutex_lock(&data->mtx); > switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) { > > --- > base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76 > change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1 > > Best regards,
Hi! On 2023-11-02 09:57:45+0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote: > On 11/1/23 20:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > For unknown ioctls the correct error is > > ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device". > > For sure! > > I would like to learn more of why this is not an UAPI breaking change? "break" would mean that some user application worked correctly before but does not do so anymore with this change. This seems highly unlikely and I was not able to find such an application via Debian code search. In general I did *not* mark this change for stable so if some application would indeed break it gets detected before the patch hits a release. > > > > ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall > > is not available at all. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net> > > --- > > net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c > > index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644 > > --- a/net/rfkill/core.c > > +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c > > @@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, > > unsigned long arg) > > { > > struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data; > > - int ret = -ENOSYS; > > + int ret = -ENOTTY; > > u32 size; > > if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC) > > - return -ENOSYS; > > + return -ENOTTY; > > mutex_lock(&data->mtx); > > switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) { > > > > --- > > base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76 > > change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1 > > > > Best regards, >
On 11/2/23 20:14, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > Hi! > > On 2023-11-02 09:57:45+0100, Przemek Kitszel wrote: >> On 11/1/23 20:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: >>> For unknown ioctls the correct error is >>> ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device". >> >> For sure! >> >> I would like to learn more of why this is not an UAPI breaking change? > > "break" would mean that some user application worked correctly before > but does not do so anymore with this change. > > This seems highly unlikely and I was not able to find such an > application via Debian code search. > > In general I did *not* mark this change for stable so if some > application would indeed break it gets detected before the patch hits > a release. > >>> >>> ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall >>> is not available at all. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net> >>> --- >>> net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c >>> index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644 >>> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c >>> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c >>> @@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, >>> unsigned long arg) >>> { >>> struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data; >>> - int ret = -ENOSYS; >>> + int ret = -ENOTTY; >>> u32 size; >>> if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC) >>> - return -ENOSYS; >>> + return -ENOTTY; >>> mutex_lock(&data->mtx); >>> switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) { >>> >>> --- >>> base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76 >>> change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1 >>> >>> Best regards, >> Thanks! Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644 --- a/net/rfkill/core.c +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c @@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) { struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data; - int ret = -ENOSYS; + int ret = -ENOTTY; u32 size; if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC) - return -ENOSYS; + return -ENOTTY; mutex_lock(&data->mtx); switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) {
For unknown ioctls the correct error is ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device". ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall is not available at all. Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net> --- net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76 change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1 Best regards,