[Lxc-users] cannot start any more any container?!

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Ulli Horlacher (framstag at rus.uni-stuttgart.de):
> On Thu 2011-10-20 (09:00), Papp Tamas wrote:
> > On 10/20/2011 12:54 AM, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed 2011-10-19 (22:11), Papp Tamas wrote:
> > >
> > >> What version of lxc package do you use?
> > > See my first mail:
> > >
> > > lxc version: 0.7.4.1
> > 
> > Well, I don't see anything like this. Actually I use 0.7.5. Try to upgrade.
> 
> 0.7.5 is out? Ok, I will install it!
> 
> 
> > What do you see in system logs?
> 
> How stupid of me! I should have checked it first.
> 
> lxc-start -f /data/lxc/vmtest1.cfg -n vmtest1 -d -o /data/lxc/vmtest1.log
> 
> /var/log/kern.log :
> 
> 2011-10-20 15:44:39 [856474.455886] device vethP1BDUb entered promiscuous mode
> 2011-10-20 15:44:39 [856474.457199] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): vethP1BDUb: link is not ready
> 2011-10-20 15:44:43 [856478.670026] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> 2011-10-20 15:44:54 [856488.810020] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> 2011-10-20 15:45:04 [856498.950026] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> 2011-10-20 15:45:14 [856509.090021] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> 2011-10-20 15:45:24 [856519.230023] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> 2011-10-20 15:45:34 [856529.370022] unregister_netdevice: waiting for lo to become free. Usage count = 3
> (...)
> 
> And everytime I run lxc-start I get a new veth interface:
> 
> root at vms1:/lxc# ifconfig | grep veth
> vethCmnezx Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 3e:d6:06:4e:26:ae
> vethFGQBYd Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr fe:0e:3c:f1:15:8c
> vethL8qOhT Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr de:55:6e:db:82:7a
> vethMBfmpb Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 4a:00:a6:e0:ce:b8
> vethMwcqoU Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr a6:d9:b8:d1:37:77
> vethOYkLQf Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 7a:3a:bd:cd:d0:51
> vethP1BDUb Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 52:de:98:d8:5a:71
> 
> 
> Any idea?

Ah, that's an old kernel bug.  Someone (Daniel?) should remember where it
got fixed offhand.

-serge