[Lxc-users] unstoppable container

[Papp Tamás]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote, On 2010. 08. 31. 4:06:
> 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.
>   

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