[lxc-users] LXCFS install issue

[Serge Hallyn]

I use lxcfs on a 3.13 kernel on one machine with no problems.

Quoting Rajasekar Darapuram (raj at robinsystems.com):
> BTW we are using kernel 3.13 kernel..can that be any issue?
> 
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Rajasekar Darapuram <raj at robinsystems.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > I'm getting the same error even for PPA based install....
> >  I just rebuilt an ISO with no older versions of LX, installed latest from
> > PPA
> > and tried creating a container..
> > i get the same error.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Raj
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Rajasekar Darapuram <raj at robinsystems.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Recently this issue has been happening even when I install it directly
> >> from PPA...
> >> the original ISO installed had older version of LXC..so I was removing
> >> that and cgmanager, adding the ppa:ubuntu/lxc/daily and installing the
> >> latest one..
> >> then i'm creating the container using the command
> >> lxc-create -n sample1 -t ubuntu
> >> and when i attach to the container, I run ps, i get the issue..
> >> the temporary fix is...when i run fusermount -uz on /proc/stat, diskstats
> >>  meminfo, cpuinfo and uptime files, then ps seems to be working fine..
> >> SOmehow these files are not being mounted properly...no idea why..
> >>
> >> anyways I just rebuilt an ISO with no older versions of LXC...installing
> >> now..will update you again, how it goes..
> >>
> >> thanks a lot for your help.
> >>
> >> THanks
> >> Raj
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn at ubuntu.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quoting Rajasekar Darapuram (raj at robinsystems.com):
> >>> > here's the log from /var/log/upstart/lxcfs.log
> >>> >
> >>> > fuse: read too many bytes
> >>> > fuse: writing device: Invalid argument
> >>>
> >>> This sounds like a fuse error.
> >>>
> >>> In
> >>> https://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/2015-April/009003.html
> >>> you said that it worked fine using the ppa package, but fails when you
> >>> build
> >>> it yourself.  Is that still the case?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >