> LXC 1.1 is a stable release, just not a long term release like 1.0.
Oh, I missed that. Many thanks for the details.
___
lxc-devel mailing list
lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org
http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-devel
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:50:05PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > Quoting Dietmar Maurer (diet...@proxmox.com):
> > > > Oh, right - so sounds like we should drop this then. Thanks.
> > >
> > > I this really a common scenario?
> >
> > Yes, very common.
>
> Oh - I though LXC 1.1 is the develop
> Quoting Dietmar Maurer (diet...@proxmox.com):
> > > Oh, right - so sounds like we should drop this then. Thanks.
> >
> > I this really a common scenario?
>
> Yes, very common.
Oh - I though LXC 1.1 is the development branch and not used in production?
Or do you use this scenario for develop
Quoting Dietmar Maurer (diet...@proxmox.com):
> > Oh, right - so sounds like we should drop this then. Thanks.
>
> I this really a common scenario?
Yes, very common.
___
lxc-devel mailing list
lxc-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org
http://lists.linuxcont
> So if I remember well, the reason why I didn't make the hook fail on
> missing lxcfs was for nested containers.
>
> When installing lxc in a nested container, lxcfs is pulled in, however
> it can't run in that environment.
If it can't run in that environment, why do you install it?
Instead, yo
> Oh, right - so sounds like we should drop this then. Thanks.
I this really a common scenario?
>>The most common case of this would be installing LXC 1.1 in a container
>>running on a host using LXC 1.0.
___
lxc-devel mailing list
lxc-devel@lists.li
Oh, right - so sounds like we should drop this then. Thanks.
-serge
Quoting Stéphane Graber (stgra...@ubuntu.com):
> So if I remember well, the reason why I didn't make the hook fail on
> missing lxcfs was for nested containers.
>
> When installing lxc in a nested container, lxcfs is pulled in
So if I remember well, the reason why I didn't make the hook fail on
missing lxcfs was for nested containers.
When installing lxc in a nested container, lxcfs is pulled in, however
it can't run in that environment.
Instead what the hook does in such a case is either nothing at all if
the parent c
Stéphane, before I apply this, do you have any objections?
It seems to me if the container is using this hook, then failing
startup if lxcfs isn't running is right. But it is a change in
behavior.
Quoting Dietmar Maurer (diet...@proxmox.com):
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Maurer
> Acked-by: Serge E.
Signed-off-by: Dietmar Maurer
Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn
Index: new/share/lxc.mount.hook.in
===
--- new.orig/share/lxc.mount.hook.in
+++ new/share/lxc.mount.hook.in
@@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ if [ -d @LXCFSTARGETDIR@/proc/ ]; then
[
Quoting Dietmar Maurer (diet...@proxmox.com):
> Hi all,
>
> for some unknown reason lxcfs crashed (will try to debug). But after
> that, I am still able to start containers, which now have
> wrong /proc and cgroup mounts.
>
> I wonder if it would be safer to disable container start if
> lxcfs
Hi all,
for some unknown reason lxcfs crashed (will try to debug). But after
that, I am still able to start containers, which now have
wrong /proc and cgroup mounts.
I wonder if it would be safer to disable container start if
lxcfs is not running, something like:
Index: new/share/lxc.mount.ho
12 matches
Mail list logo
