linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] checkpoint/restart: x86 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:43:12 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] checkpoint/restart: x86 support

On Saturday 09 August 2008, Oren Laadan wrote:
> >> Anyway, either a single structure for both 32 and 64 bit x86, or separate
> >> "struct cr_hdr_cpu{_32,_64}", one for each architecture.
> > 
> > struct pt_regs is part of the kernel ABI, it will not change.
> 
> I'm in favor about keeping the format identical between the variations of
> each architecture. Note, however, that "struct pt_regs" won't do because it
> may change with these variations.
> 
> So we'll take care of the padding and add r8..r15 in the next version.
> 

Fair enough. How about making the layout in that structure identical to
the 64-bit pt_regs though? I don't know if we need that at any time,
but my feeling is that it is nicer than a slightly different random
layout, e.g. if someone wants to extend gdb to look at checkpointed
process dumps.

	Arnd <><
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/