From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1751648AbZBMFJy@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751648AbZBMFJy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:09:54 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750776AbZBMFJp
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:09:45 -0500
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:62106 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750775AbZBMFJo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:09:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4995007D.7040101@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:09:17 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
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()
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> <20090212070729.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090212070729.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>> 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?
> 

The warning still can be triggered, but seems harder (cost me 1 hour)

> Alternatively, what if the second thread is doing
> 	mount --bind cgroup foo
> 	umount foo
> in a loop?
> 

I ran following testcase, and triggered the warning in 1 hour:

thread 1:
for ((; ;))
{
        mount --bind /cgroup /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
        umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
}

tread 2:
for ((; ;))
{
        mount -t cgroup -o cpu xxx /cgroup > /dev/null 2>&1
        mkdir /cgroup/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
        rmdir /cgroup/0 > /dev/null 2>&1
        umount -l /cgroup > /dev/null 2>&1
}

> Another one: does turning the umount in the first thread into umount -l
> affect anything?
> 

For this one, I ran the test for the whole night, but failed to hit the warning.