Quoting Papp Tamás (tom...@martos.bme.hu): > > 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)
and that it's an uptodate lucid. > - container was unstoppable(?) even if there were no processess > - the way I was successful > - ...and? A recipe to reproduce the bug. It has to be reproducible. Then I'll run the recipe and when I see the failure, I'll confirm the bug (which a separate second person needs to do). 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
