| 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, 10 Oct 2008 12:27:50 +0200 From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com> To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint() Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:43 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Hmm, I don't know too much about aio, but is it possible to succeed with >> io_getevents if we didn't first do a submit? It looks like the contexts >> are looked up out of current->mm, so I don't think we need this call >> here. >> >> Otherwise, this is neat. > > Good question. I know nothing, either. :) > > My thought was that any process *trying* to do aio stuff of any kind is > going to be really confused if it gets checkpointed. Or, it might try > to submit an aio right after it checks the list of them. I thought it > best to be cautious and say, if you screw with aio, no checkpointing for > you! IMO, the right path would be to deny checkpoint if you have aio requests pending but if you have not, aio's are not an issue for checkpoint anymore. but that's one easy one to track ... C. -- 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