Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:26:23 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? Message-ID: <7b977409-96ee-5acb-60d0-3b0e124495f0@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <5A4FF989.1040709@grosbein.net> References: <24acbd94-c52f-e71a-8a96-d608a10963c6@rawbw.com> <1514572041.12000.7.camel@freebsd.org> <CAOtMX2jSonHQ9xzVD3Q9XS2twBm_CT3Tquwn%2Bf6zmc7aV0QerQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180105221330.GD95035@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <5A4FF989.1040709@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/05/2018 16:17, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > 06.01.2018 5:13, Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> I would argue the opposite. There are very few reasons why close(s) would >>> ever fail, and the most likely is EBADF. EBADF indicates a programming >>> bug, like a double close or use of an uninitialized variable. Those could >>> easily turn into worse bugs in the future. So I think the best course of >>> action is to check the return code, assert() on EBADF, and ignore, or >>> possibly log, other errors. >> >> For this specific case, I think there would be value in an option to >> have the kernel kill any process that calls close(fd) where fd != -1 >> where EBADF would be returned. > > A medicine should not be worse worse than the disease, imho. In a multi-threaded application, a double-close can close completely unrelated file descriptors, which can be a nightmare to diagnose. In that case, death by signal is far better than the disease. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7b977409-96ee-5acb-60d0-3b0e124495f0>