Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:36:38PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >> >
>> >>
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:36:38PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:36:38PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >> >
> >> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:36:38PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >> >
> >> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
> >> > a zombie
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >
>> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
>> > a zombie process.
>> >
>> > I guess the only
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >
>> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
>> > a zombie process.
>> >
>> > I guess the only question left is if zap_pid_ns_processes()
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >
> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
> > a zombie process.
> >
> > I guess the only question left is if zap_pid_ns_processes() should (or
> >
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:08:58PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >
> > I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
> > a zombie process.
> >
> > I guess the only question left is if zap_pid_ns_processes() should (or
> > could)
> > somehow
Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
> a zombie process.
>
> I guess the only question left is if zap_pid_ns_processes() should (or could)
> somehow detect that situation and return instead of waiting forever.
> What
Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> I think you nailed it. If I drop CLONE_NEWPID from the reproducer I get
> a zombie process.
>
> I guess the only question left is if zap_pid_ns_processes() should (or could)
> somehow detect that situation and return instead of waiting forever.
> What do you think ?
Any
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On 05/12/2017 01:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On 05/12/2017 01:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric
On 05/12/2017 01:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
On 05/12/2017 01:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Guenter Roeck writes:
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Vovo Yang writes:
On Fri, May 12, 2017
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi Eric,
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Vovo Yang
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi Eric,
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Vovo Yang writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Vovo Yang writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:33:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Vovo Yang writes:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> >> > wrote:
>
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Vovo Yang writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> > wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Vovo Yang writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> > wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >>
>> >>> What I know so far is
>> >>> - We see this condition on
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vovo Yang writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> > wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >>> What I know so far is
> >>> -
Hi Eric,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:26:27AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vovo Yang writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> > wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >>> What I know so far is
> >>> - We see this condition on a regular basis in the field.
Vovo Yang writes:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>>> What I know so far is
>>> - We see this condition on a regular basis in the field. Regular is
>>> relative, of course -
Vovo Yang writes:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>>> What I know so far is
>>> - We see this condition on a regular basis in the field. Regular is
>>> relative, of course - let's say maybe 1 in a Milion Chromebooks
>>> per day
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>> >>
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> > As an add-on to my previous mail: I added a function to count
>> > the number of threads in the pid namespace, using next_pidmap().
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> > As an add-on to my previous mail: I added a function to count
>> > the number of threads in the pid namespace, using next_pidmap().
>> > Even though nr_hashed == 2, only the
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >>
>> >> >
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > the test program attached below
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > the test program attached
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:25:23PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:23:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >>
>> >> >
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:23:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > the test program attached below
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
>> > processes being stuck in
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
>> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:23:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > the test program attached
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:23:17PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Guenter Roeck writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
>> > processes being stuck in
Guenter Roeck writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Guenter Roeck writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
>> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> > see
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> > see from test logs that
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> > see
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:31:21PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Guenter Roeck writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> > processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> > see from test logs that
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi all,
>
> the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> see from test logs that nr_hashed == 2 and init_pids==1, but there is only
> a single
Guenter Roeck writes:
> Hi all,
>
> the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
> processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
> see from test logs that nr_hashed == 2 and init_pids==1, but there is only
> a single thread left in the pid
Hi all,
the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
see from test logs that nr_hashed == 2 and init_pids==1, but there is only
a single thread left in the pid namespace (the one that is stuck).
Hi all,
the test program attached below almost always results in one of the child
processes being stuck in zap_pid_ns_processes(). When this happens, I can
see from test logs that nr_hashed == 2 and init_pids==1, but there is only
a single thread left in the pid namespace (the one that is stuck).
48 matches
Mail list logo