[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][4/11][MANUX] Kernel compatibility : ioctl(2)
Le 15/04/2014 17:00, One Thousand Gnomes a écrit :
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:42:54 +0200
> Emmanuel Colbus <> wrote:
>> Continuing with syscalls, I would like to indicate you a modification
>> I've done with regards to ioctl's. The thing is, I have had the need for
>> ioctl's that return *file descriptors*, instead of standard return codes.
> You probably only think you have ;-)
> The return from an ioctl on 32bit is going to be an unsigned 32bit value,
> as is a Linux file handle. So if you do
> fd = ioctl(foo);
> then not only have you got an interface that isn't compliant with
> POSIX/SuS you also have no error reporting capability.

Wait, on 32 bits, no process can have 2^32 file handles, or even 2^31.
Thus, since the error code is a negative value, userspace will simply do :

fd = _sys_ioctl(foo);
if (fd < 0)
errno = -fd;

Which the libc is going to do for them anyways if they call ioctl()

> The expectation of ioctl is
> err = ioctl(fd, FDIOWIBBLE, &result);
> now if result is a pointer to where to store one or more file handles you
> are sorted.

Also feasible.

> If you are going to use SuS/POSIX naming I'd really suggest sticking to
> the expected behaviour in the standards.

I think this is an unproblematic extension, especially since these
ioctls are only supposed to be called by low-level software shipped with
the OS.

> Alan

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-15 18:21    [W:0.036 / U:18.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site