linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:51:20 -0500
From:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code

Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@...ux-foundation.org):
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:27:53 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew (Cc:d), did you see this thread go by, and it did it look
> > in any way more palatable to you?  Have you had any thoughts on
> > checkpoint/restart in the last few months?  Or did that horse quietly
> > die over winter?
> 
> argh, it was the victim of LIFO.
> 
> All I can say at this stage is that I'll be interested next time it
> comes past, sorry.

Thanks, that's good to know.

As you know, we started with a minimal patchset, then grew it over time
to answer the "but how will you (xyz) without uglifying the kernel".
Would you recommend we go back to keeping a separate minimal patchset,
or that we develop on the current, pretty feature-full version?  I'm not
convinced believe there will be bandwidth to keep two trees and do both
justice.

thanks,
-serge

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)