On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:15:33 -0700 Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ? > This bug hasn't been fixed yet, has it? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
