On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:26 AM Christopher Obbard < chris.obb...@collabora.com> wrote:
> Right, so it looks like the call to close_range fails. This is a 5.4 > kernel which doesn;t have close_range - so this is understandable. > No, if it was just a missing syscall, it would fail with -ENOSYS instead (triggering systemd's fallback to a traditional close() loop). That's what happens on vanilla 5.4 and older kernels. If you're getting -EINVAL, then either your downstream patches tried to backport close_range (unsuccessfully), or... added a whole different syscall at the same syscall number, so check what your kernel's arch/**/syscall.tbl says about number 436? -- Mantas Mikulėnas
