Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezc...@free.fr): > On 08/31/2010 12:23 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezc...@free.fr): > >>On 08/30/2010 02:36 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >>>Quoting Papp Tamás (tom...@martos.bme.hu): > >>>>Daniel Lezcano wrote, On 2010. 08. 30. 13:08: > >>>>>Usually, there is a mechanism used in lxc to kill -9 the process 1 of > >>>>>the container (which wipes out all the processes of the containers) > >>>>>when lxc-start dies. > >>>>It should wipe out them, but in my case it was unsuccessfull, even if I > >>>>killed the init process by hand. > >>>> > >>>>>So if you still have the processes running inside the container but > >>>>>lxc-start is dead, then: > >>>>> * you are using a 2.6.32 kernel which is buggy (this mechanism is > >>>>>broken). > >>>>Ubuntu 10.04, so it's exactly the point, the kernel is 2.6.32 . > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Could you point me (or the Ubuntu guy in the list) to an URL, which > >>>>describes the problem or maybe to the kernel patch. If it's possible, > >>>>maybe the Ubuntu kernel maintainers would fix the official Ubuntu kernel. > >>>Daniel, > >>> > >>>which patch are you talking about? (presumably a patch against > >>>zap_pid_ns_processes()?) If it's keeping containers from properly > >>>shutting down, we may be able to SRU a small enough patch, but if > >>>it involves a whole Oleg rewrite then maybe not :) > >>I am referring to these ones: > >> > >>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commit;h=13aa9a6b0f2371d2ce0de57c2ede62ab7a787157 > >>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commit;h=dd34200adc01c5217ef09b55905b5c2312d65535 > >>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commit;h=dd34200adc01c5217ef09b55905b5c2312d65535 > >(note, second and third are identical - did you mean to paste 2 or 3 links? > > 3 links, was this one. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commit;h=614c517d7c00af1b26ded20646b329397d6f51a1
Ah, thanks. I had a feeling the second one depended on defining si_fromuser in all lowercase, but for some reason git wasn't showing that one to me easily. > >>Are they small enough for a SRU ? > >The first one looks trivial enough. I'd be afraid the second one would be > >considered to have deep and subtle regression potential. But, we can > >always try. I'm not on the kernel team so am not likely to have any say > >on it myself :) > > Shall we ask directly to the kernel-team@ mailing list ? Or do we > have to do a SRU first ? Actually, first step would be for Papp to open a bug against both lxc and the kernel. Papp, do you mind doing that? Without a bug, an SRU ain't gonna fly. thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
