[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150802140706.GD17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 15:07:06 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Dr. Werner Fink" <werner@...e.de>
Subject: Re: May close() return any error code?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
> > big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
> > an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem
> > defined in POSIX:
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/close.html
>
> Hmm, if I checked the right version of the code close_nointr_nofail()
> expects only 0 as the return code so even if we change the kernel to
> use more conforming -EIO instead of -ENODEV systemd will still die...
>
> The question is whether we really need to propagate return value from
> f_op->flush() up to userspace in filp_close(). Why don't we ask Al?
That's the whole damn point of having ->flush(). And yes, we do need that -
things like NFS (not to mention tapes, etc.) do rely on that.
Whether it makes sense to do this kind of "do something that might have
a failure to report on each close()" for evdev is up to driver, obviously.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists