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: <48F839D9.9090201@cs.columbia.edu>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:08:09 -0400
From:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
To:	Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
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



Peter Chubb wrote:
>>>>>> "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.

Your observation is correct. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to
add the necessary glue for the vfork() case, and it's important to do
it because:
(a) as noted, a malicious user can exploit that.
(b) if you run 'make -j 32' you are likely to have an on-going vfork.
(c) vfork() is the easy case (compared to ptrace) and easy to solve.

Oren.

> --
> 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/