| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080811171433.2ce81f28@bike.lwn.net> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:14:33 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: checkpoint/restart ABI On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:47:49 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote: > The other problem that you really need to solve is interface > stability. What you are creating is a binary representation > of many kernel internal data structures, so in our common > rules, you have to make sure that you remain forward and > backward compatible. Simply saying that you need to run > an identical kernel when restarting from a checkpoint is not > enough IMHO. OTOH, making one of these checkpoint files go into any 2.6.x kernel seems like a very high bar, to the point, perhaps, of killing this feature entirely. There could be a case for viewing sys_restore() as being a lot like sys_init_module() - a view into kernel internals that goes beyond the normal user-space ABI, and beyond the stability guarantee. It might be possible to create a certain amount of version portability with a modversions-like mechanism, but it sure seems hard to do better than that. jon -- 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