linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] 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]

Message-ID: <48F7352F.3020700@fr.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:35:59 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
CC:	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, jeremy@...p.org, arnd@...db.de,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart

Oren Laadan wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>>> hmm, that's rather complex, because we have to take into account the 
>>>> kernel stack, no ? This is what Andrey was trying to solve in his patchset 
>>>> back in September :
>>>>
>>>>         http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/3/96
>>>>
>>>> the restart phase simulates a clone and switch_to to (not) restore the kernel 
>>>> stack. right ? 
>>> Do we ever have to worry about the kernel stack if we simply say that
>>> tasks have to be *in* userspace when we checkpoint them. 
>> at a syscall boundary for example. that would make our life easier 
>> definitely. 
>>
> 
> The ideal situation is never worry about kernel stack: either we catch
> the task in user space or at a syscall boundary. This is taken care of
> by freezing the tasks prior to checkpoint.
> 
> The one exception (and it is a tedious one !) are states in which the
> task is already frozen by definition: any ptrace blocking point where
> the tracee waits for the tracer to grant permission to proceed with
> its execution. Another example is in vfork(), waiting for completion.

I would say these are perfect places for "may be non-checkpointable" :)

> In both cases, there will be a kernel stack and we cannot avoid it.
> The bad news is that it may be a bit tedious to restart these cases.
> The good news, however, is that they are very well defined locations
> with well defined semantics. So upon restart all that is needed is
> to emulate the expected behavior had we not been checkpointed. This,
> luckily, does not require rebuilding the kernel stack, but instead
> some smart glue code for a finite set of special cases.
--
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/