Andrew Morton writes:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:13:09 -0800
> ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>> If mock has called unshare(CLONE_NEWPID). And then forked a process and
>> that process exited, and then forked anothe process that second and all
>> subsequent fork calls will fail
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:13:09 -0800
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> If mock has called unshare(CLONE_NEWPID). And then forked a process and
> that process exited, and then forked anothe process that second and all
> subsequent fork calls will fail with -ENOMEM (because init has e
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:40:13 -0800
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Clark Williams writes:
>
> > The more I look at that the more I think I should nuke CLONE_NEWPID in
> > mock. It came in with a commit that added NEWIPC, which I think is valid
> > for mock managing a chroot, b
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:05:55 -0800
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Josh Boyer writes:
>
> >> So it looks mock is taking a buggy untested code path and things are not
> >> working as it expected.
> >
> > Quite possibly, yes. I instrumented the kernel a bit and it is indeed
> >
Clark Williams writes:
> The more I look at that the more I think I should nuke CLONE_NEWPID in
> mock. It came in with a commit that added NEWIPC, which I think is valid
> for mock managing a chroot, but we're not looking to do full-up
> containers at this point and it looks like containers is t
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:13:09PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
For posterity's sake
> From: "Eric W. Biederman"
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 12:05:54 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] pid: unlock_irq when alloc_pid fails because init has
> exited.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman"
Tested-by: Josh
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:27:26 -0500
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:45:47PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Josh Boyer writes:
> >
> > > < Two emails fly past each other in the night >
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > >> My best guess in some dark corner of mock has untested code to unsh
Josh Boyer writes:
>> So it looks mock is taking a buggy untested code path and things are not
>> working as it expected.
>
> Quite possibly, yes. I instrumented the kernel a bit and it is indeed
> failing in the alloc_pid call.
>
> Clark, thoughts here?
I will just add the solution is probably
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:45:47PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Josh Boyer writes:
>
> > < Two emails fly past each other in the night >
>
> Yep.
>
> >> My best guess in some dark corner of mock has untested code to unshare a
> >> pid namespace, and that corner started doing something now
Josh Boyer writes:
> < Two emails fly past each other in the night >
Yep.
>> My best guess in some dark corner of mock has untested code to unshare a
>> pid namespace, and that corner started doing something now that
>> unsharing of the pid namespace actually works.
>>
>> If mock has called un
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:36:08PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Josh Boyer writes:
> >> OK. I've bisected this down to:
> >>
> >> 50804fe3737ca6a5942fdc2057a18a8141d00141 is the first bad commit
> >> commit 50804fe3737ca6a5942fdc2057a18a8141d00141
> >> Author: Eric W. Biederman
> >> Date:
Josh Boyer writes:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 01:19:49PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:35:01PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
>> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > H
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:13:09PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Josh Boyer writes:
> >> Right, agreed. As I said, I think that is mostly a secondary issue.
> >> Hopefully it will be easy to fix once we figure out why we're getting
> >> the ENOMEM error.
> >>
> >> Python backtrace below. Se
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 01:19:49PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:35:01PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > We've
Josh Boyer writes:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:35:01PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
>> > Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi All,
>> > >
>> > > We've hit a weird error in Fedora using the 3.8-rcX
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:35:01PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > We've hit a weird error in Fedora using the 3.8-rcX kernels. It seems
> > > the
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We've hit a weird error in Fedora using the 3.8-rcX kernels. It seems
> > the mock tool is getting back ENOMEM when doing very simple things that
> > norm
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:57:42 -0500
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We've hit a weird error in Fedora using the 3.8-rcX kernels. It seems
> the mock tool is getting back ENOMEM when doing very simple things that
> normally just work. The 3.7 kernels on the same userspace work just
> fine. It se
18 matches
Mail list logo