Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 24, 2022. It is now read-only.

Issue #405 (lxc-stop failing) seems to be back #424

Closed
mowings opened this issue Oct 30, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Issue #405 (lxc-stop failing) seems to be back #424

mowings opened this issue Oct 30, 2016 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@mowings
Copy link

mowings commented Oct 30, 2016

Looks like the old issue with lxc-stop failing after a gracefull shutdown is back:

==> box: Forcing shutdown of container...
 INFO driver: Shutting down container...
 INFO subprocess: Starting process: ["/usr/bin/sudo", "/usr/bin/env", "lxc-attach", "--name", "box", "--", "/bin/true"]
 INFO subprocess: Vagrant not running in installer, restoring original environment...
DEBUG subprocess: Selecting on IO
DEBUG subprocess: Waiting for process to exit. Remaining to timeout: 32000
DEBUG subprocess: Exit status: 0
 INFO subprocess: Starting process: ["/usr/bin/sudo", "/usr/bin/env", "lxc-attach", "--name", "box", "--", "/sbin/halt"]
 INFO subprocess: Vagrant not running in installer, restoring original environment...
DEBUG subprocess: Selecting on IO
DEBUG subprocess: Waiting for process to exit. Remaining to timeout: 31999
DEBUG subprocess: Exit status: 0
 INFO subprocess: Starting process: ["/usr/bin/sudo", "/usr/bin/env", "lxc-stop", "--name", "box"]
 INFO subprocess: Vagrant not running in installer, restoring original environment...
DEBUG subprocess: Selecting on IO
DEBUG subprocess: stderr: box is not running
DEBUG subprocess: Waiting for process to exit. Remaining to timeout: 31999
DEBUG subprocess: Exit status: 1
ERROR warden: Error occurred: There was an error executing ["sudo", "/usr/bin/env", "lxc-stop", "--name", "box"]

Containers are hosted on Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS, lxc version is 2.05. vargrant-lxc is latest master (1.2.1) The root cause seems to be that lxc-stop is exiting with an exit code of 1 instead of 2 as expected by the code (and specified in the man entry for lxc-stop). In truth, this is really a bug in lxc-stop, since it seems to be returning the wrong error code.

It might be wiser to to just use lxc-wait to check the status of the container after the graceful shutdown, and then only call lxc-stop if necessary. Or ignore the return of lxc-stop and only go into an error state only if lxc-wait shows that the container is not stopped.

You may just want to wait until the lxc team fixes lxc-stop. However that means that vagrant-lxc will be broken for lxc 2.05. My current work-around in my own fork will be to just ignore the output of lxc-stop fot the moment

@mowings
Copy link
Author

mowings commented Oct 30, 2016

Justa follow up -- I submitted an issue to the lxc team, and they've fixed it in master. So we should be good on the next release

@JPvRiel
Copy link

JPvRiel commented Dec 10, 2016

Same issue here and for me, a simple workaround was running vagrant destroy twice. First time triggers the bug, but second time progresses.

1st run gave me the box not running error (as per original post)

2nd run

...
==> eg: Destroying VM and associated drives...
 INFO subprocess: Starting process: ["/usr/bin/sudo", "/usr/local/bin/vagrant-lxc-wrapper", "lxc-destroy", "--name", "eg_eg_1481362958533_47439"]
 INFO subprocess: Vagrant not running in installer, restoring original environment...
DEBUG subprocess: Selecting on IO
DEBUG subprocess: stdout: Destroyed container eg_eg_1481362958533_47439
...

I confirmed it was indeed stopped and destroyed with lxc-ls

So until upstream fixes and new release lands in 16.04 LTS, double destroy...

@fgrehm
Copy link
Owner

fgrehm commented Nov 17, 2022

Hey, sorry for the silence here but this project is looking for maintainers 😅

As per #499, I've added the ignored label and will close this issue. Thanks for the interest in the project and LMK if you want to step up and take ownership of this project on that other issue 👋

@fgrehm fgrehm closed this as completed Nov 17, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants