linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

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:	Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:05:48 -0800
From:	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>
To:	Gene Cooperman <gene@....neu.edu>
Cc:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	Kapil Arya <kapil@....neu.edu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	ksummit-2010-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

GC> As before, Oren, let's have that phone discussion so that we can
GC> preprocess a lot of this, instead of acting like the the three
GC> blind men and the elephant.  I will _tell you_ the strengths and
GC> weaknesses of DMTCP on the phone, instead of you having to guess
GC> at them here on LKML.  And of course, I hope you will be similarly
GC> frank about Linux C/R on the phone.

I want to be in on that discussion too, as do a lot of other people
here.  However, I doubt we'll all be able to find a common spot on our
collective schedules, nor would that conversation be archived for
posterity.  I think sticking to LKML is the right (and time-tested)
approach.

OL> Linux-cr can do live migration - e.g. VDI, move the desktop - in
OL> which case skype's sockets' network stacks are reconstructed,
OL> transparently to both skype (local apps) and the peer (remote
OL> apps).  Then, at the destination host and skype continues to work.

GC> That's a really cool thing to do, and it's definitely not part of
GC> what DMTCP does.  It might be possible to do userland live
GC> migration, but it's definitely not part of our current scope.

How would you go about doing that in userland?  With the current
linux-cr implementation, I can move something like sshd or sendmail
from one machine to another without a remote (connected) client
noticing anything more than a bit of delay during the move.

I think that saving and restoring the state of a TCP connection from
userland is probably a good example of a case where it makes sense to
have it as part of a C/R function, but not necessarily exposed in /sys
or /proc somewhere.  Unless it can be argued that doing so is not
useful, I think that's a good talking point for discussing the kernel
vs. user approach, no?

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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/