Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

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.
 
> Actually it is kinda throttled, but only on process name.
> This patch just removes that stuff completely.
> (Also removes a bunch of trailing whitespace)

FF tree already has a different solution.

-Andi


>