HI Takashi, On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Hi, > > while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we > encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to > be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input > devices returns ENODEV error. The logind in systemd-210 treats this > error code as fatal, triggers assert() and eventually kills itself. > The details are found in an openSUSE bugzilla thread: > https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=939571 > > 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? Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
