On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:33:05PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com):
> > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com):
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:50:39PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com):
> > > > > When creating ephemeral containers that have the option lxc.ephemeral
> > > > > = 1 set
> > > > > in their config, they will be destroyed on shutdown. As they are
> > > > > simple overlay
> > > > > clones of an existing container they should be registered in the
> > > > > lxc_snapshots
> > > > > file of the original container to stay consistent and adhere to the
> > > > > expectancies of the users. Most of all, it ensure that we cannot
> > > > > remove a
> > > > > container that has clones, even if they are just ephemeral
> > > > > snapshot-clones. The
> > > > > function adds further consistency because remove_snapshots_entry()
> > > > > ensures that
> > > > > ephemeral clone-snapshots deregister themselves from the
> > > > > lxc_snapshots file
> > > > > when they are destroyed.
> > > > >
> > > > > POSSIBLE GLITCH:
> > > > > I was thinking hard about racing conditions and concurrent acces on
> > > > > the
> > > > > lxc_snapshots file when lxc-destroy is called on the container while
> > > > > we
> > > > > shutdown then container from inside. Here is what my thoughts are so
> > > > > far:
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be no racing condition when lxc-destroy including all
> > > > > snapshots is
> > > >
> > > > Note that lxcapi_destroy_with_snapshots() deletes the *snapshots*, not
> > > > the
> > > > snapshot clones. This is an unfortunate naming clash (which we could
> > > > try
> > > > to correct henceforth but we need good names :), but they are different.
> > > > So anything under /var/lib/lxc/$container/snaps will be deleted. But if
> > > > you've created an overlayfs clone, then containers listed in
> > > > /var/lib/lxc/$container/lxc_snapshots will not be deleted. There is no
> > > > API call or program to automatically deleted those right now.
> > >
> > > I think you are partially wrong here. I was not thinking about problems
> > > created
> > > by an API-call but by the lxc-destroy exectuable. A quick walkthrough:
> > > With the
> >
> > D'oh. Yeah, you'll need to mutex that somehow.
>
> If you want help up-front with the design, please let me know. If you
> aren't sure what the current container_disk_lock() and container_mem_lock()
> do, please shout. (they are explained in a LOCKING comment above
> lxc_container_free() in src/lxc/lxccontainer.c)
>
> The easiest thing to do mght be to disk_lock the container in lxc_destroy.c,
> then make the mod_rdep() helper which you use in lxc_destroy.c be a _locked
> variant (to avoid deadlock). So mod_rdep() would turn into something like:
>
> static bool mod_rdep(struct lxc_container *c0, struct lxc_container *c, bool
> inc)
> {
> bool ret;
> if (container_disk_lock(c0))
> return false;
> ret = mod_rdep_locked(c0->name, c0->lxcpath, c->name, c->lxcpath);
> container_disk_unlock(c0);
> return ret;
> }
>
> -sergeThanks, this is really nice! One question: - I'll take it that we want to make mod_rdep() public. mod_rdep() will be used in lxc_destroy.c, lxccontainer.c and start.c. Problem is that in start.c we do not have a container to pass into mod_rdep(). Do you want me to rewrite mod_rdep() to take in lxcpath and lxcname? If so, could we still use disk_lock() and mem_lock by e.g. calling lxc_container_new(lxcname, lxcpath) and then calling disk_lock() or mem_lock() after to protect the container?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
