From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755616AbbHDKVg (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:21:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55436 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754185AbbHDKVd (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 06:21:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:21:32 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Al Viro Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Dr. Werner Fink" Subject: Re: May close() return any error code? In-Reply-To: <20150802140706.GD17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20150729144511.GA11233@dtor-ws> <20150802140706.GD17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/24.5 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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