linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] 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:	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/