Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:24:18 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 209112] /usr/sbin/jail jails fail to launch with possible race when jails mount common dir with nullfs
Message-ID:  <bug-209112-8-2Aer3lGKcJ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-209112-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-209112-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D209112

Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jamie@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #1 from Jamie Gritton <jamie@FreeBSD.org> ---
There are a couple problems with the jail startup script, neither of which =
is
exactly at the center of this complaint.

The first is the lack of logging in case of failure.  The $_tmp file is rem=
oved
(after printing only the last line), which it should be preserved somehow. =
 I
don't know if printing the whole thing out is the right answer, or appendin=
g it
to some long file, but removing it is problematic.

The second is the parallel start.  There is a jail_parallel_start flag, but
it's only checked when starting a subset of jails (i.e. "service jail start=
 foo
bar") and not when starting all jails.

Both of these should be fixed, but they're not the source of your problem, =
only
something that makes it harder to solve.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to
recreate your issue, and was in fact able to create 100 jails each with a
nullfs-mount directory, in a setup based on your noted jail.conf file.

Still, I have a guess: the nullfs module.  The error you're getting is ENOD=
EV,
is given when mounting a filesystem type that depends on a kernel module and
loading that module fails.  Now there's some kernel locking around the modu=
le
load that should make it so different mounts tying to load the same module =
at
the same time don't run into each other, and like I mentioned it worked out=
 for
me.  But of the places where ENODEV was mentioned, that seemed the most lik=
ely.

I'll leave this bug open, but I'll only be looking at the jail part of it, =
not
at the central issue.  That's out of my area and what I failed to duplicate.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-209112-8-2Aer3lGKcJ>