[Lxc-users] unstoppable container

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano at free.fr):
> On 08/31/2010 12:23 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >Quoting Daniel Lezcano (daniel.lezcano at free.fr):
> >>On 08/30/2010 02:36 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>>Quoting Papp Tamás (tompos at 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