On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 08:31:59PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:27:06PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:33:05PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > > Quoting Serge Hallyn (serge.hal...@ubuntu.com): > > > > > > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:50:39PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Quoting Christian Brauner (christianvanbrau...@gmail.com): > > > > > > > > > When creating ephemeral containers that have the option > > > > > > > > > lxc.ephemeral = 1 set > > > > > > > > > in their config, they will be destroyed on shutdown. As they > > > > > > > > > are simple overlay > > > > > > > > > clones of an existing container they should be registered in > > > > > > > > > the lxc_snapshots > > > > > > > > > file of the original container to stay consistent and adhere > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > expectancies of the users. Most of all, it ensure that we > > > > > > > > > cannot remove a > > > > > > > > > container that has clones, even if they are just ephemeral > > > > > > > > > snapshot-clones. The > > > > > > > > > function adds further consistency because > > > > > > > > > remove_snapshots_entry() ensures that > > > > > > > > > ephemeral clone-snapshots deregister themselves from the > > > > > > > > > lxc_snapshots file > > > > > > > > > when they are destroyed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POSSIBLE GLITCH: > > > > > > > > > I was thinking hard about racing conditions and concurrent > > > > > > > > > acces on the > > > > > > > > > lxc_snapshots file when lxc-destroy is called on the > > > > > > > > > container while we > > > > > > > > > shutdown then container from inside. Here is what my thoughts > > > > > > > > > are so far: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There should be no racing condition when lxc-destroy > > > > > > > > > including all snapshots is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that lxcapi_destroy_with_snapshots() deletes the > > > > > > > > *snapshots*, not the > > > > > > > > snapshot clones. This is an unfortunate naming clash (which we > > > > > > > > could try > > > > > > > > to correct henceforth but we need good names :), but they are > > > > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > So anything under /var/lib/lxc/$container/snaps will be > > > > > > > > deleted. But if > > > > > > > > you've created an overlayfs clone, then containers listed in > > > > > > > > /var/lib/lxc/$container/lxc_snapshots will not be deleted. > > > > > > > > There is no > > > > > > > > API call or program to automatically deleted those right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are partially wrong here. I was not thinking about > > > > > > > problems created > > > > > > > by an API-call but by the lxc-destroy exectuable. A quick > > > > > > > walkthrough: With the > > > > > > > > > > > > D'oh. Yeah, you'll need to mutex that somehow. > > > > > > > > > > If you want help up-front with the design, please let me know. If you > > > > > aren't sure what the current container_disk_lock() and > > > > > container_mem_lock() > > > > > do, please shout. (they are explained in a LOCKING comment above > > > > > lxc_container_free() in src/lxc/lxccontainer.c) > > > > > > > > > > The easiest thing to do mght be to disk_lock the container in > > > > > lxc_destroy.c, > > > > > then make the mod_rdep() helper which you use in lxc_destroy.c be a > > > > > _locked > > > > > variant (to avoid deadlock). So mod_rdep() would turn into something > > > > > like: > > > > > > > > > > static bool mod_rdep(struct lxc_container *c0, struct lxc_container > > > > > *c, bool inc) > > > > > { > > > > > bool ret; > > > > > if (container_disk_lock(c0)) > > > > > return false; > > > > > ret = mod_rdep_locked(c0->name, c0->lxcpath, c->name, > > > > > c->lxcpath); > > > > > container_disk_unlock(c0); > > > > > return ret; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > -serge > > > > > > > > Thanks, this is really nice! One question: > > > > - I'll take it that we want to make mod_rdep() public. mod_rdep() will > > > > be used > > > > in lxc_destroy.c, lxccontainer.c and start.c. Problem is that in > > > > start.c we do > > > > not have a container to pass into mod_rdep(). Do you want me to > > > > rewrite > > > > mod_rdep() to take in lxcpath and lxcname? If so, could we still use > > > > > > Ok, I'm not running on all cylinders, sorry. > > > > > > You don't want mod_rdep, you want mod_all_rdeps. So yes export that, > > > make a struct lxc_container, lock it, and pass that to mod_all_rdeps > > > which will dothe mod_rdeps for you. > > > > Ok, so in start.c we can actually use lxc_container new. I could modify my: > > Yeah I think that looks good,
Then one final question: Should we make mod_all_rdeps() public with lxccontainer.h or should we move it to a different header?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ lxc-devel mailing list lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel