Daniel Lezcano [dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > 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. Hmm, There are two separate dentries associated with the processes. One in each mount of /proc. The proc dentries in the child container are freed when the child container unmounts its /proc so you don't see the leak when the lstat() is inside the container. When the lstat() is in the root container, it is accessing proc-dentries from the _root container_ - They are supposed to be flushed when the task exits (but the above commit prevents that flush). They should be freed when the /proc in root container is unmounted - and leak until then ? Sukadev _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
