Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > Ccing Andrea's new email id: > > Daniel Lezcano [dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > >> Following your explanation I was able to reproduce a simple program >> added in attachment. But there is something I do not understand is why >> the leak does not appear if I do the 'lstat' (cf. test program) in the >> pid 2 context. >> > > Hmm, are you sure there is no leak with this test program ? If I put back > the commit (7766755a2f249e7), I do see a leak in all three data structures > (pid_2, proc_inode, pid_namespace). > Let me clarify :) The program leaks with the commit 7766755a2f249e7 and does not leak without this commit. This is the expected behaviour and this simple program spots the problem. I tried to modify the program and I moved the lstat to the process 2 in the child namespace. Conforming your analysis, I was expecting to see a leak too, but this one didn't occur. I was wondering why, maybe there is something I didn't understood in the analysis. Thanks -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
