[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090212070729.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:07:29 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: containers@...ts.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636
mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 02:54:58PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> But the following testcase can also trigger the warning:
>
> thread 1:
> for ((; ;))
> {
> mount -t cgroup -o ns xxx cgroup/ > /dev/null 2>&1
> # remove the dirs generated by cgroup_clone()
> rmdir cgroup/[1-9]* > /dev/null 2>&1
> umount cgroup/ > /dev/null 2>&1
> }
>
>
> thread 2:
>
> int foo(void *arg)
> { return 0; }
>
> char *stack[4096];
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> int usec = DEFAULT_USEC;
> while (1) {
> usleep(usec);
> # cgroup_clone() will be called
> clone(foo, stack+4096, CLONE_NEWNS, NULL);
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
Uh-oh... That clone() will do more, actually - it will clone a bunch
of vfsmounts. What happens if you create a separate namespace for the
first thread, so that the second one would not have our vfsmount to
play with?
Alternatively, what if the second thread is doing
mount --bind cgroup foo
umount foo
in a loop?
Another one: does turning the umount in the first thread into umount -l
affect anything?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists