linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based checkpointing/restart

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:08:43 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based
	checkpointing/restart

Quoting Andrey Mirkin (major@...nvz.org):
> Anyway we should ask everyone what they think about user- and kernel- based 
> process creation.
> Dave, Serge, Cedric, Daniel, Louis what do you think about that?

I prefer kernel.  Pretty sure Dave prefers user-space.

I'd say the thing to do is push the core API that supports single-thread
c/r.  Then try to push the patch to do recreate processes from the
kernel, and let the arguments for and against that stand on their own.

-serge
--
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/