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: <87r66g8875.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:51:42 +1100
From:	Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Cc:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	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" == Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu> writes:

Oren> Daniel Lezcano wrote:

>>> 
>>> 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" :)

Oren> For now, yes. But we definitely want this capability in the long
Oren> run; otherwise we won't be able to checkpoint a kernel compile
Oren> ('make' uses vfork), or anything with 'gdb' running inside, or
Oren> 'strace', and other goodies.

The strace/gdb example is *really* hard; but for vfork, you just wait
until it's over. The interval between vfork and exec/exit should be
short enough not to affect the overall time for a checkpoint (and
checkpoint can be fairly slow anyway --- on the HPC machines we used
to do it on, writing half a terabyte of checkpoint image to disc could take
many minutes.  In hindsight, we should have multithreaded it).
Waiting for a vforked process to exec is less than a millisecond.
--
Dr Peter Chubb  http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au  peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au
http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au           ERTOS within National ICT Australia
--
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/