Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64

[Dave Jones]

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
 > On 5/21/06, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/