linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart: general infrastructure

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]

Message-Id: <1218726736.23641.2.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:12:16 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart: general infrastructure

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 07:53 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > As Oren has pointed out before, passing in an fd means we can pass a
> > socket into the syscall.
> 
> If you do pass a socket, will it handle blocking correctly? Getting
> deadlocked task would be bad. What happens if I try to snapshot into
> /proc/self/fd/0 ? Or maybe restore from /proc/cmdline?

Heh, that's a good point.  What was the other code where we kept coming
up with deadlocks like that?  Anyone remember?

-- 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/