linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] c/r: define s390-specific checkpoint-restart code

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:37:17 -0600
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux390@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] c/r: define s390-specific checkpoint-restart code

Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@...columbia.edu):
> 
> 
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Implement the s390 arch-specific checkpoint/restart helpers.  This
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> I will assume that the s390 specifics are correct...
> 
> > is on top of Oren Laadan's c/r code (which so far was x86_32-only)
> > submitted here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/29/38, plus two more
> > patches by Nathan Lynch to fix some 64-bit issues (see
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-January/015313.html
> > and
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-January/015314.html
> > ).
> 
> ckpt-v13 already has these two fixed.
> 
> > 
> > With these, I am able to checkpoint and restart simple programs as per
> > Oren's patch intro.  While on x86 I never had to freeze a single task
> > to checkpoint it, on s390 I do need to.  That is a prereq for consistent
> > snapshots (esp with multiple processes) anyway so I don't see that as
> > a problem.
> > 
> > Oren, should we be putting a byte at the front of the format to
> > specify the architecture?
> 
> If we add a field to 'struct cr_hdr_head', then we'll need arch-dependent
> code in a non-arch dependent source, to ensure that no two architectures
> choose the same value as an identifier.
> 
> Can we not use the 'machine' string fiels in 'struct cr_hdr_head' - and
> then additional classification can take place in cr_read/write_head_arch() ?

Huh, yes, I somehow missed that.

> > +#define DEBUG 1
> > +
> >  #include <linux/version.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> >  #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> > diff --git a/checkpoint/restart.c b/checkpoint/restart.c
> > index 6b4cd75..f65a63e 100644
> > --- a/checkpoint/restart.c
> > +++ b/checkpoint/restart.c
> > @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
> >   *  distribution for more details.
> >   */
> >  
> > +#define DEBUG 1
> > +
> >  #include <linux/version.h>
> >  #include <linux/sched.h>
> >  #include <linux/wait.h>
> > 
> 
> Probably unrelated ?

Yup.  Will send a new version inc. your changes and against
v13 later this week.

thanks,
-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/