From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758046AbZBLHHy@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758046AbZBLHHy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:07:54 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751514AbZBLHHi
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:07:38 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:54545 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751154AbZBLHHh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:07:37 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:07:29 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636
	mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()
Message-ID: <20090212070729.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <49617D35.4040805@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090209004046.3ce1dde0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090209093414.GU28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <499013CC.2060808@cn.fujitsu.com> <4993BD5D.2020707@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090212062442.GE28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4993C2A0.3050507@cn.fujitsu.com> <4993C7C2.4060100@cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4993C7C2.4060100@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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?