Serge E. Hallyn wrote, On 2010. 08. 31. 4:06: > 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. >
Sure I can do this. What should I write in the report exactly and what is the correct email address I write to? - kernel version (2.6.32.x) - system (Ubuntu) - container was unstoppable(?) even if there were no processess - the way I was successful - ...and? Thank you, tamas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
