[Lxc-users] LXC on Debian Squeeze

[Ferenc Wagner]

Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano at free.fr> writes:

> On 09/28/2010 09:21 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano at 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-closed@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.

I couldn't agree more, please reopen the bug.  I don't get why "this
doesn't look like an actual leak."
-- 
Thanks,
Feri.