linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:17:21 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, orenl@...columbia.edu,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart

* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:05:47 -0800
> Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> > > Checkpoint-restart (c/r): a couple of fixes in preparation for 64bit
> > > architectures, and a couple of fixes for bugss (comments from Serge
> > > Hallyn, Sudakvev Bhattiprolu and Nathan Lynch). Updated and tested
> > > against v2.6.28.
> > > 
> > > Aiming for -mm.
> > 
> > Is there anything that we're waiting on before these can go into -mm?  I
> > think the discussion on the first few patches has died down to almost
> > nothing.  They're pretty reviewed-out.  Do they need a run in -mm?  I
> > don't think linux-next is quite appropriate since they're not _quite_
> > aimed at mainline yet.
> > 
> 
> I raised an issue a few months ago and got inconclusively waffled at. 
> Let us revisit.
> 
> I am concerned that this implementation is a bit of a toy, and that we
> don't know what a sufficiently complete implementation will look like. 
> There is a risk that if we merge the toy we either:
> 
> a) end up having to merge unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code to
>    make it a non-toy or
> 
> b) decide not to merge the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code,
>    leaving us with a toy or
> 
> c) simply cannot work out how to implement the missing functionality.
> 
> 
> So perhaps we can proceed by getting you guys to fill out the following
> paperwork:
> 
> - In bullet-point form, what features are present?

It would be nice to get an honest, critical-thinking answer on this.

What is it good for right now, and what are the known weaknesses and
quirks you can think of. Declaring them upfront is a bonus - not talking
about them and us discovering them later at the patch integration stage
is a sure receipe for upstream grumpiness.

This is an absolutely major featue, touching each and every subsystem in
a very fundamental way. It is also a cool capability worth a bit of a
maintenance pain, so we'd like to see the pros and cons nicely enumerated,
to the best of your knowledge. Most of us are just as feature-happy at
heart as you folks are, so if it can be done sanely we are on your side.

For example, one of the critical corner points: can an app programmatically 
determine whether it can support checkpoint/restart safely? Are there 
warnings/signals/helpers in place that make it a well-defined space, and
make the implementation of missing features directly actionable?

( instead of: 'silent breakage' and a wishy-washy boundary between the
  working and non-working space. Without clear boundaries there's no
  clear dynamics that extends the 'working' space beyond the demo stage. )

	Ingo
--
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/