linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/30] cr: core stuff

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:	Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:04:19 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xemul@...allels.com, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	orenl@...columbia.edu, hch@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/30] cr: core stuff

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:41:39AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@...il.com):
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 04:47:01PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@...il.com):
> > > 
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > > 
> > > as far as I can see, the main differences between this patch and the
> > > equivalent in Oren's tree are:
> > > 
> > > 1. kernel auto-selects container init to freeze
> > 
> > Note, auto-select part was dropped, userspace is required to pass pid of
> > container init exactly. This was done to keep semantic of checkpoint(2)
> > small and extendable.
> 
> sys_checkpoint() in this patch still finds the child_reaper of the
> passed-in pid, doesn't it?  Or are you saying that a later patch in
> this set removes that?
> 
> > > 2. kernel freezes tasks
> > > 3. no objhash taking references
> > 
> > That's because none needed.
> 
> Right while I have opinions on some things in this list, I didn't
> mean to imply positions on these items.  My question was:  are
> there are differences you want to call out?

Sorry? "none needed" is relevant to only item 3. If tasks don't
dissapear during checkpoint, why would netns dissapear.
Taking refcount on checkpoint(2) is likely unneeded.

But it's low-level detail anyway.
--
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/