On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:10:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Sven-Haegar Koch [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:43:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

quoted

quoted

You need to return -ENOTTY from scsi_verify_blk_ioctl and -ENOIOCTLCMD from
sd_compat_ioctl, because -ENOIOCTLCMD will not be handled correctly by
block/ioctl.c. �This would break BLKROSET and BLKFLSBUF done by non-root
but with the appropriate capabilities.

Fixed patch follows. �If you prefer that I send an interdiff, let me know.

Wait, why do you want the stable trees to diverge from what is in
Linus's tree with regards to the error codes being returned?

That doesn't seem safe, or sane.

So for now, I'm going to follow what is in Linus's tree. �If you
need/want the error codes to be different, then shouldn't it also be
done there as well?

May be because the stable trees do not have
07d106d0a33d6063d2061305903deb02489eba20? "vfs: fix up ENOIOCTLCMD error
handling"?

I believe that is the case, yes.  Linus was unhappy about ENOIOCTLCMD vs.
ENOTTY overall when the patch was first submitted, which lead to that commit.
The patches Paolo submitted for stable are the original versions that apply
directly to 3.2 and older.

07d106d0a isn't really stable material as it was put into 3.3 to catch any odd
fallout from the change.

Ok, thanks both of you, that makes more sense now.  I'll take Paolo's
updated patches and do a release now.

greg k-h