Control: retitle -1 lxc: cannot start container with kernel 4.13.10 On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:32:31AM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Package: lxc > Version: 1:2.0.9-3 > Severity: serious > > I'm filing this in lxc initially as I don't know exactly where the issue > is yet. We will probably want to reassign it. > > Something other than lxc itself changed recently in unstable which makes > lxc not able to start a Debian container: > > # lxc-start -n autopkgtest-sid-amd64 > lxc-start: lxccontainer.c: wait_on_daemonized_start: 754 Received container state "ABORTING" instead of "RUNNING" > lxc-start: tools/lxc_start.c: main: 368 The container failed to start. > lxc-start: tools/lxc_start.c: main: 370 To get more details, run the container in foreground mode. > lxc-start: tools/lxc_start.c: main: 372 Additional information can be obtained by setting the --logfile and --logpriority options. > # cat /var/lib/lxc/autopkgtest-sid-amd64/autopkgtest-sid-amd64.log > lxc-start 20171101123914.655 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:220 - If you really want to start this container, set > lxc-start 20171101123914.655 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:221 - lxc.aa_allow_incomplete = 1 > lxc-start 20171101123914.655 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:222 - in your container configuration file > lxc-start 20171101123914.655 ERROR lxc_sync - sync.c:__sync_wait:57 - An error occurred in another process (expected sequence number 5) > lxc-start 20171101123914.701 ERROR lxc_container - lxccontainer.c:wait_on_daemonized_start:754 - Received container state "ABORTING" instead of "RUNNING" > lxc-start 20171101123914.701 ERROR lxc_start - start.c:__lxc_start:1530 - Failed to spawn container "autopkgtest-sid-amd64". > lxc-start 20171101123914.701 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:368 - The container failed to start. > lxc-start 20171101123914.701 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:370 - To get more details, run the container in foreground mode. > lxc-start 20171101123914.701 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:372 - Additional information can be obtained by setting the --logfile and --logpriority options. > lxc-start 20171101132533.307 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:220 - If you really want to start this container, set > lxc-start 20171101132533.307 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:221 - lxc.aa_allow_incomplete = 1 > lxc-start 20171101132533.307 ERROR lxc_apparmor - lsm/apparmor.c:apparmor_process_label_set:222 - in your container configuration file > lxc-start 20171101132533.307 ERROR lxc_sync - sync.c:__sync_wait:57 - An error occurred in another process (expected sequence number 5) > lxc-start 20171101132533.373 ERROR lxc_container - lxccontainer.c:wait_on_daemonized_start:754 - Received container state "ABORTING" instead of "RUNNING" > lxc-start 20171101132533.374 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:368 - The container failed to start. > lxc-start 20171101132533.374 ERROR lxc_start - start.c:__lxc_start:1530 - Failed to spawn container "autopkgtest-sid-amd64". > lxc-start 20171101132533.374 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:370 - To get more details, run the container in foreground mode. > lxc-start 20171101132533.374 ERROR lxc_start_ui - tools/lxc_start.c:main:372 - Additional information can be obtained by setting the --logfile and --logpriority options. > > > This is not happening on testing yet. When I upgrade a testing VM to > unstable, I can still start the container before a reboot. After a > reboot, I cannot start a container anymore. Maybe it's related to some > kernel change? > > I'm copying debian-kernel in case someone there can provide some insight. So, I tried downgrading the kernel to the one in testing, rebooted, and now I can start containers again, So this is being caused by a change in the kernel between 4.13.4-2 and 4.13.10-1 I still need to study the lxc code path that is being triggered to be able to provide more useful information. Since the issue is definitively related to apparmor, I am also copying the apparmor team in case they have any input to provide.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature