Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:15:33 -0700
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       andrea@cpushare.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
       Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: pidns memory leak
Message-ID: <20091014061533.GA23569@us.ibm.com>
References: <4AC5F198.2070407@fr.ibm.com> <20091006040526.GA22923@us.ibm.com> <4ACAFD6A.3060008@fr.ibm.com> <20091008030828.GA18973@us.ibm.com> <4ACD9ECC.90508@fr.ibm.com> <20091009032928.GA2031@us.ibm.com> <4ACF381F.9050808@fr.ibm.com> <20091010013235.GA11904@us.ibm.com> <4AD2EBC7.2020109@fr.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AD2EBC7.2020109@fr.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1901
Lines: 44

Daniel Lezcano [dlezcano@fr.ibm.com] wrote:
> Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>> Ccing  Andrea's new email id:
>>
>> Daniel Lezcano [dlezcano@fr.ibm.com] 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 ?

Sukadev
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/