firewire: cdev: return -ENOTTY for unimplemented ioctls, not -EINVAL
commit d873d794 upstream. On Jun 27 Linus Torvalds wrote: > The correct error code for "I don't understand this ioctl" is ENOTTY. > The naming may be odd, but you should think of that error value as a > "unrecognized ioctl number, you're feeding me random numbers that I > don't understand and I assume for historical reasons that you tried to > do some tty operation on me". [...] > The EINVAL thing goes way back, and is a disaster. It predates Linux > itself, as far as I can tell. You'll find lots of man-pages that have > this line in it: > > EINVAL Request or argp is not valid. > > and it shows up in POSIX etc. And sadly, it generally shows up > _before_ the line that says > > ENOTTY The specified request does not apply to the kind of object > that the descriptor d references. > > so a lot of people get to the EINVAL, and never even notice the ENOTTY. [...] > At least glibc (and hopefully other C libraries) use a _string_ that > makes much more sense: strerror(ENOTTY) is "Inappropriate ioctl for > device" So let's correct this in the <linux/firewire-cdev.h> ABI while it is still young, relative to distributor adoption. Side note: We return -ENOTTY not only on _IOC_TYPE or _IOC_NR mismatch, but also on _IOC_SIZE mismatch. An ioctl with an unsupported size of argument structure can be seen as an unsupported version of that ioctl. Signed-off-by:Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Signed-off-by:
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment