On 09/28/2010 09:21 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezc...@free.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe it would be easier to check first if you have this fd in bash with ls
>> -al /proc/<pid>/fd and then follow up the hierarchy to find the first
>> process who introduced this fd.
>>
> So, tracing the two open fds as you suggested
>
> lxc-start: inherited fd 7 on pipe:[5329]
> lxc-start: inherited fd 9 on pipe:[5333]
>
> in the following tree
>
> init─┬─acpid
> ├─console-kit-dae───63*[{console-kit-da}]
> ├─cron
> ├─2*[dbus-daemon]
> ├─dbus-launch
> ├─dhclient
> ├─gdm───gdm─┬─Xorg
> │ └─fluxbox─┬─ssh-agent
> │ ├─urxvt───bash───su───bash
> │ └─xterm───bash───su───bash───pstree
>
> revealed they are both open starting with the second gdm process
> down to the leaf bash processes.
> The first gdm process had only fd 7 on pipe:[5329] open and finally
> init had none of these pipes.
>
> As you can see, I have exchanged xmonad for fluxbox and in
> addition to urxvt I tried xterm without any change.
>
> To send the bugreport to a proper place, which process should be
> responsible for closing those fds? gdm?
>
Yes, I think so.
I found that :
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-clo...@lists.debian.org/msg270073.html
It was not considered as a bug but IMO it was not looked closely enough,
having a fd inherited in all the child processes is a bug :)
Maybe you can reopen it.
Thanks
-- Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Lxc-users mailing list
Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
