On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:07:06 +0200, Al Viro wrote: > > 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. So, the behavior of VFS layer is as designed. Then I suppose the fix should be rather in evdev.c. Dmitry, could you paper over it? thanks, Takashi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
