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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:06:24 -0700 From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] kernel-based checkpoint restart On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 11:25 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > pid_t pid = getpid(); > > int ret; > > > > ret = syscall(__NR_checkpoint, pid, STDOUT_FILENO, 0); > > Interface-wise, I would consider checkpointing yourself signficantly > different from checkpointing some other thread. If checkpointing > yourself is the common case, it probably makes sense to allow passing > of pid=0 for this. I don't think it is the common case. Probably now when we're screwing around with it, but not in the future. Do you think it is worth adding the pid=0 handling? -- Dave -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists