linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny

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: <20081011134803.GA1483@ucw.cz>
Date:	Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:48:03 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()

Hi!

> > > 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!
> 
> as long as there's total transparency and the transition from CR-capable 
> to CR-disabled state is absolutely safe and race-free, that should be 
> fine.
> 
> I expect users to quickly cause enough pressure to reduce the NOCR areas 
> of the kernel significantly ;-)
> 
> In the long run, could we expect a (experimental) version of hibernation 
> that would just use this checkpointing facility to hibernate? That would 
> be way cool for users and for testing: we could do transparent kernel 
> upgrades/downgrades via this form of hibernation, between CR-compatible 
> kernels (!).

Well, if we could do that, I guess we could also use CR to 'hibernate'
your desktop then continue on your notebook. And yes that sounds cool.

> Pie in the sky for sure, but way cool: it could propel Linux kernel 
> testing to completely new areas - new kernels could be tried 
> non-intrusively. (as long as a new kernel does not corrupt the CR data 
> structures - so some good consistency and redundancy checking would be 
> nice in the format!)

Well, for simple apps, it should not be that hard...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/